a Ὁ fod
ἣν ΝΣ ἊΝ Ἂς
᾿ aS
| SSeS .
|
\ : :
ἧς
(
.
7
|
ἊΝ
Was
N
.
4 ᾿
θῇ
ΒΝ
ΨΑΨ ΑΔ
ΟΙΝΟΒΟΙ 30 ALISH3AINN πνεῖ - τι ᾿
LOLI €
~~)
Presented to
The Library
of the
University of Toronto
by
Bertram A. Davis
from tbe books of
the late Lionel Davis, ik.C.
A HISTORY
THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS.
PRINTED BY
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED,
FOR
T. ἃ T. CLARK, EDINBURGH,
LONDON ; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO, LIMITER
oe . NEW YORK: CHARLES-SCRIBNER'S SONS, .
ERISTORY
OF
al € of The GN
THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS,
FROM THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS,
TO THE CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL OF NICAA,
ἈΠ 82 5,
BY THE
RIGHT Ruy. ( CHARLES) JOSEPH. “HEFELE, iD
BISHOP OF ila
FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TUBINGEN,
Translated from the German, und Edited
By WILLIAM RK CLARK, MA,
PREBENDARY OF WELLS AND VICAR OF TAUNTON,
SECOND EDITION, REVISED.
EDINBURGH: 5.9
T ἃ T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
1894,
“+ . -
Ν᾿ ᾿ re Vrs
¥ - , ba
“}
*
due
.
΄-
ke .
rte
©; e
q <4
ey
PREFACE,
------
* O portion of Church History has been so much ne-
glected in recent times as the History of the Councils.
With the exception of a few monographs on particular synods,
nothing of importance has appeared on this subject in our
days. It is high time that this state of things should be altered,
and altered not by a mere adaptation of old materials, but by
a treatment of the subject suited to the wants of the present
day. This has become less difficult, inasmuch as new docu-
ments have been brought to light, and we live in an age
when many errors have been abandoned, many prejudices
have been put on one side, great progress has been made in
eritical studies, and a deeper insight into the development of
the Christian Church has undoubtedly been gained.
“T have been employed for a good many years in the com-
position of a History of the Councils of the Church, which
should be of a comprehensive character, and founded upon
original documents. I may affirm that I have spared no
pains to secure accuracy, and have done my best to consult
all the literature which bears upon the subject.” 3
The hopes which Dr. Hefele thus expressed in his preface
to the first volume of his History have been abundantly ful-
filled. He has not only supplied an acknowledged want in his
own country in a manner which leaves little to desire, but
he has brought within the reach of all German scholars an
amount of information in connection with the ancient councils
which is to be found only in part even in those large collec-
tions of Hardouin and Mansi, which are seldom to be met
with in private libraries. It is to be hoped that the interest
vi PREFACE.
manifested in that portion of his work which is translated in
this volume may induce the publishers to carry it forward at
least to the close of the fourth GEcumenical Council.
The Translator was at first in doubt as to the best form in
which to present this History to the English public,—whether
in the form of a paraphrase, in which case it must have been
almost an original work, or 885. ἃ simple translation. Various
considerations induced him to adopt the latter course. There
was little difficulty in doing so, as Dr. Hefele’s German style,
unlike that of many of his Protestant fellow-countrymen, is
generally lucid and intelligible. The Editor, when he first
undertook the work of preparing the History for English
readers, intended to add a number of notes from writers who
regard the subject from a different point of view. This he
afterwards found to be unnecessary, and the additional notes
are accordingly very few. Dr. Hefele is so fair in the state-
ment of facts, that every reader may very easily draw his
conclusions for himself.
All possible care has been taken to make the references
and quotations correct. It is almost certain, however, that
slight mistakes may still be found in these pages; and the
Editor will gratefully receive any corrections which may be
forwarded to him, and make use of them should a second
edition of the work be called for.
Since writing the above, the Editor has. received a very
kind letter from the Author, which he desires to acknowledge
the more gratefully, from the fact that he had delayed to
write to Dr. Hefele until after the work of translation was
considerably advanced. This delay was not, however, volun-
tary. At the time when the translation was begun, the
Bishop had. gone to Rome to take part in the Vatican
Council, and it was felt that.at such a time it would be
unsuitable to address him. After the close of the Council,
the Editor was himself engaged in various ways; but he has
now the satisfaction of making various corrections which
have been most kindly forwarded to him by the Author.
PREFACE, Vil
Most of these have been inserted in their proper place;
but the following correction is of so much importance,
that it has been thought better to introduce it here. At
p. 50, line 4, the Author wishes the following passage to
be substituted for that which previously appeared :—Erase
from “Martin v.” (line 4) to “a general theory” (line 15),
and substitute: “When, therefore, Martin v. declared at
the last session of the Council of Constance, that he ap-
proved and ratified all that had been decreed by the present
holy GEcumenical Council of Constance in materiis fider con-
ciliariter (that is, by the whole Council, and not merely by
individual nations), this approval had immediate reference
only to the special matter of Falkenberg (see vol. vii. p. 568
of Hefele’s Conciliengeschichte): he said nothing at all on the
decrees respecting the superiority of an cecumenical council to
the Pope; and if this Pope, in the bull of the 22d February
1418, required of every one the recognition of the Council
of Constance as being cecumenical, and that all which it had
decreed in favorem fider et salutem animarum must be re-
ceived and believed (vol. vii. p. 347), he evidently avoided
giving it a complete and universal confirmation. His words,
which we have quoted above, have a decidedly restrictive
character. He indicated by them that he excluded some of
the decrees of the Council from his approbation (evidently
those referring to the superiority of the Council); but for
the sake of peace, he did not choose to express himself more
clearly. His successor, Eugenius 1Vv., declared himself with
ereater distinctness in 1446, when he accepted the whole
Council of Constance, and all its decrees, absque tamen prevju-
dicio juris, dignitatis, et praeminentie sedis apostolice. There
can be no question that by this he intended to exclude from
his approbation the decrees of Constance respecting the supe-
riority of an cecumenical synod to the Pope.”
The Editor has to thank several friends for directing his
attention to a few mistakes in the first edition. Should
any be still detected in the present, he will be grateful
for their being pointed out. W. RK. C.
CONTENTS.
: Eee RPODUCTION, ~
PaGR
Sec. 1. Origin and Authority of Councils, ° . ‘ ’ 1
» 2. Different Kinds of Synods, : : : ὶ Ἀ 2
» 9. By whom are Synods convoked, ° 3 ‘ ° 6
»» 4. Members of Councils, . s ° : e : 16
ys 5. The Presidency of Councils, . : : ° 2
»» 6. Confirmation of the Decrees of the Councils, . : 7 42
», 7, Relation of the Pope to the Ecumenical Council, ‘ sot 40
»» 8. Infallibility of Ecumenical Councils, . Ἵ 52
»» 9% Appeal from the Pope tc an Ecumenical Council, ὃ ay |
»», 10. Number of the Ecumenical Councils, . β ‘ ‘ 55
»» 11. Customs observed in Ecumenical Councils with respect to Sig-
natures, Precedence, Manner of Voting, etc., : : 64
» 12. Histories of the Councils, é ; ; ; - 67
BOOK TI.
ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS,
CHAPTER I.
COUNCILS OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES,
Sec. 1. Synods relative to Montanism, . ‘ . . “Ὁ 7
» 2. Synods concerning the Feast of Easter, . ° Β «ie 80
x» 3. Doubtful Synods of the Second Century, κεἰ ° ane &
x CONTENTS,
CHAPTER II,
SYNODS OF THE THIRD CENTURY,
Src. 4. First Half of the Third Century, , . . ,
» ὅ. First Synods at Carthage anf og on account of Novatianism
and the Lapsi (251); 5 ΓΦ ΓΤ, Ἶ :
,.» 6. Synods relative to the Baptism of Heretics (255-256), . ;
»» 7. Synod of Narbonne (255-260), . . . Ὁ °
»» 8. Synods at Arsinée and Rome (255+260), ‘
»» 9. Three Synods at Antioch on account of Paul of Samosata (264-
269), » a a an mae gtk oie ὖνΜῬ a . :
.- Ἀ
CHAPTER III.
118
THE SYNODS OF THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS OF THE FOURTH
CENTURY.
Src. 10, Pretended Synod of Sinuessa (303), ° ° ° Ἵ
»» 11. Synod of Cirta (505), . . . . . ᾿
», 12. Synod of Alexandria (306), : Ἢ . » :
»» 18. Synod of Elvira (305 or 806), . ;
» 14. Origin of the Schism of the Donatists, and the first ἐμὰ held
on this account in 312 and 313, | i a” . ae
»» 15. Synod of Arles in Gaul (914), . ee ee ὁ e
»» 16. Synod of Ancyra in 314, ent ὦ ἜΝ νῶν τιν
» 17. Synod of Neocesarea (314-325), ὁ . ° ᾿
ΒΟΟΚ 11.
THE FIRST ΘΠΟΟΜΕΝΙΟΑΙ, COUNCIL OF ΝΙΟΖΑ, A.D, 325,
CHAPTER I,
PRELIMINARY.
Sec. 18. Doctrine of the Logos prior to Arianism, $6 5 ὸ Ἶ
ἂν 49. ἌΤΙ, ᾿ ° . .
20.. Synod of ‘Alecastbita § in 320, asst its οὐοόδιοονιω .
»» 21. Arius obliged to leave Alexandria. His Letters and his Thalia,
»» 22. Synod in Bithynia, Intervention of the Emperor Constantine,
222
CONTENTS,
CHAPTER IL
THE DISCUSSIONS AT NICAZA,
Src. 28. Synodal Acts, . ‘ P » ὶ . .
», 34, The Convocation by the Emperor, > ° ° ‘
», 25. Number of the Members of the Council, . ὁ °
»» 26. Date of the Synod, < : i ° . 9
». 27. The Disputations, ‘ : ‘ .
», 28, Arrival of the cciecnsiiedeias Opening of mie Council—Pre-
sidency, ° . . . . ᾽
. 29. Mutual Complaints of the Bishops, ° ‘ . .
», 80. Manner of Deliberation, ° . : ° .
.,. 91, Paphnutius and Spiridion, . . Ἶ . °
», 92. Debates with the Eusebians—The ὁμοούσιος, . . ‘
», 933. Creed of Eusebius of Cesarea, . ° ° ° ἃ
», 94. The Nicene Creed, ὃ Ἂ . . ° ‘
» 985. The Signatures, . . . . . : .
», 86. Measures taken by the Emperor against the Arians, . :
», 37. Decision of the Easter Question, Pe P ‘ »
», 98. The later Quartodecimans, ὰ ° ° . °
», 39. The Audians, . . . . ° °
», 40. Decision on the subject of the Meletian Schism, ° .
.», 41. Number of the Nicene Canons, . ® .
>, 42. Contents of the Nicene Canons, . 5 °
», 48. Paphnutius and the projected Law of οὐκ, . .
», 44. Conclusion—Unpublished Documents, ‘ Ἶ 4
APPENDIX
The so-called Apostolic Canons, . é ‘ . . °
INDEX, .- . . “ ΄ . . . °
PAGE
262
268
270
274
277
279
282
282
284
285
288
293
296
297
298
332
334
341
355
375
435
439
449
499
πὰ ἤν ἐν ok Ye
6s ἃ wa ᾧ oa )
> Γ ᾿ ‘ : * 4%
ἔπ ἃ eee ᾽ Ξ
᾿ ‘ . “ Γ
ὁ a * ¢ ¢ ‘
ΡΣ ἐν ᾿ς 4 » ry
x ‘ rs . 4 «' . ‘ 5
-
δ + > . . - .
be nd x
ὃ Ste ° . 9 ἃ ᾿ ‘
φυ ὃ Be < ae - ‘
ey?
ti Pe . . 2 ° ° « ΟΣ
ἐ ‘ » νι ἃ ae
ee - a 3 ΕῚ oa
. - . a a [1
" . . ΕἸ ΟῚ ‘
᾿ ‘ - > > ;
€
ἣν 4 4 ” > Ψ « . j
- “ . - ο 4 ῳ .
.
‘ * Φ ° ” » ΄
“ ‘ a a ᾿ é
ἢ biz on a?
9 “
‘ ἢ 7 ζ .
ry > sy a ο a @
. δ ᾿ "4. ν
᾿ υ ῳ
Ν
a * 7 [ἢ
δ ᾿ : . . a κι Shee
. Η ᾿ ~ ¢
" a : wwe a , : “2
» : a
* ¢ 4 *
2 } :
δ - δὰ. fio ὦ ὅδ,
HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
INTRODUCTION.
Sec. 1. Origin and Authority of Councils.
HE two synonymous expressions, concilium and σύνοδος,
signify primarily any kind of assembly, even a secular
one; but in the more restricted sense of a Church assembly,
zc. οἵ a regularly convoked meeting of the rulers of the
Church for the discussion and decision of ecclesiastical busi-
ness, the word concilium is found for the first time in Ter-
tullian,’ and σύνοδος in the Apostolical Canons ;? while the
Apostolical Constitutions ὃ designate even the ordinary meetings
of Christians for divine service by the name of σύνοδος.
That the origin of councils is derived from the Apostolic
Synod held at Jerusalem about the year 52,‘ is undoubted ; but
theologians are not agreed as to whether they were instituted
by divine or by human authority. The true answer to this
question is as follows: They are an apostolical institution ; but
the apostles, when they instituted them, acted under the com-
mission which they received from Christ, otherwise they could
not have published the decisions of their synod with the
words, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” They
must have been convinced that the Lord of the Church had
promised and had granted His Spirit to the assemblies of the
Church.
Later synods have acted and spoken in the same conviction,
that the Holy Ghost governed the assemblies of the Church ;
and Cyprian in his time wrote,’ in the name of the Council
1 De Jejun, ce. 18. 3 Ὁ, 36, alias 37 or 88. 31, 6. 20.
* Acts xv. 6 Bp. 54.
A
9 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
over which he presided, a.v. 252, to Pope Cornelius: “It
seemed good to us, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit”?
(Placuit nobis, Sancto Spiritu suggerente). To the same effect
the Synod of Arles, A.D. 314, expressed itself: “It seemed
good, therefore, in the presence of the Holy Spirit and His
angels” (Placuit ergo, presente Spiritu Sancto et angelis ejus:
Hardouin, Collect. Concil. t. 1. p. 262). And it was this con-
viction, which was so universal, that led the Emperor Con-
stantine the Great to call the decree of the Synod of Arles
a heavenly judgment (caleste yudictwm); and he added, that the
judgment of the priests ought to be so received as though, the
Lord Himself sat and judged (sacerdotwm judicium ita debet
habert, ac st ipse DoMINuS residens judicet). Twenty years
later he again publicly expressed the same belief, at the close
of the first cecumenical council at Nicea, in these words:
“What seemed good to the three hundred holy bishops (that
is, the members of the Nicene Synod) is no otherwise to be
thought of than as the judgment of the only Son of God”
(Quod trecentis sanctis episcopis viswm est, non est aliud putan-
dum, quam solius Filii Det sententia).* In perfect agreement
with this are the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers, Greek -
as well as Latin, of Athanasius as of Augustine and Gregory
the Great, the latter of whom goes so far as to compare the
authority of the first four general councils with the importance
of the four holy Gospels.”
The earliest synods known to us were held about the middle
of the second Christian century in Asia Minor: they were '
occasioned by the rise of Montanism. It is, however, not
improbable that such assemblies were held earlier in the Greek
Church, perhaps on account of the Gnostics, inasmuch as the
Greeks from the earliest times had more inclination, and also
greater need, for synods,.than those of the Western Church.
SEC. 2. Different kinds of Synod.
It has been customary, in dealing with ecclesiastical statis-
tics, to divide the councils into four classes; but they may ©
be more accurately divided into eight, since there have actually
been ecclesiastical assemblies of the kinds described under
1 Hard. i. 447, 2 Lib. i. Ep. 25.
INTRODUCTION. it 3
the following numbers,—two, five, seven, and eicht. Foremost
of all stand,— : :
1. The Universal or Gcumenical Councils, at which the
bishops and other privileged persons’ from all the ecclesias-
tical provinces of the world’ are summoned to be present
under the presidency of the Pope or his legates, and are
bound to attend, unless in case of reasonable hindrance; and
whose decisions are then received by the whole Church, and
have the force of law for all the faithful. Hence it is clear
that a council may possibly be intended to be cecumenical,
and be summoned as such, and yet not receive the rank of an
cecumenical synod,—as when its progress is stopped, or when
it does not accomplish its object, or becomes divided, and the
like ; and for such reasons does not receive the approval of
the whole Church, and particularly of the Pope. So it was
with the so-called Latrocinium or Robber-Synod at Ephesus,
AD. 449. The bishops of all provinces were summoned, and
the papal legates were present; but violence was used which
prevented free discussion, so that error prevailed: and this.
Synod, instead of being recorded with honour, is marked with
a brand on the page of history.
2. The second rank is given to General Councils or Synods:
of the Latin or Greek Church, at which were present the
bishops and other privileged persons either of the whole Latin
or of the whole Greek Church, and thus only the representa-
tives of one-half of the whole Church. Thus, in the first in-
stance, the Synod held at Constantinople, a.p. 381, was only
a Greek or Eastern general council, at which were present
all the four Patriarchs of the East,—those of Constantinople,
of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, with many other
metropolitans and bishops. As, however, this Synod was
afterwards received by the West, it acquired the rank of an
cecumenical council.
3. When the bishops of only one patriarchate or primacy
᾿ (ae. of a diocese, in the ancient sense of the word), or of only
1 Of these, more hereafter.
5 οἰκουμένη. Not merely of the Roman Empire, as Spittler supposed (Complete:
Works, viii. p. 175), although in the ancient Church the boundaries of the
Church very nearly coincided with those of the Roman Empire.
4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
one kingdom or nation, assembled under the presidency of the
patriarch, or primate, or first metropolitan, then we have re-
spectively a national, or patriarchal, or primatial council,
which frequently received the name of wniversal or plenary
(universale or plenarium).’ The bishops of the Latin Church:
in Africa, for instance, metropolitans and suffragans, often as-
sembled in synods of this kind under the Primate of Carthage;
and in the same way the archbishops and bishops of all Spain
under their primate, the Archbishop of Toledo. In still earlier
times, the metropolitans and bishops of Syria assembled under
the Archbishop of Antioch, their supreme metropolitan, after-
wards called by the name of Patriarch.
4. A Provincial Synod is considerably smaller, and is formed
by the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province, with his
suffragan bishops and other privileged persons.
5. Intermediate between the third and fourth classes are
those synods, which are not uncommon in the history of the
Church, in which the bishops of several contiguous ecclesias-
tical provinces united for the discussion of subjects of common
interest. They may be called the Councils of several United
Provinces ; and they rank lower than the national or primatial
synod in this respect, that it is not the complete provinces of
a nation or of a primacy which are represented in them.
6. By Diocesan Synods we understand those ecclesiastical
assemblies which the bishop holds with his clergy, and over
which he presides either personally or by his vicar-general.
7. Councils of a peculiar and even abnormal character, and
known as σύνοδοι ἐνδημοῦσαι (Synods of Residents), were often
held at Constantinople, when the Patriarch not unfrequently
assembled around him bishops who happened to be staying
(ἐνδημοῦντες) at Constantinople on private or other business,
from provinces and patriarchates the most widely separated,
for the discussion of important subjects, particularly for the
decision of contests between the bishops themselves.? We
shall have occasion to adduce more on this subject when we
1 Cf. an article by the author in the Tiibinger Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1852,
pt. iii. p. 406.
2 Cf. the treatise of Quesnel, De Vita, etc., S. Leonis Δ΄, Op. S. Leonis, t. iis
Ὁ. 521 ff (ed. Ballerini),
INTRODUCTION. 5
come to discuss the ninth and twenty-eighth canons of
Chalcedon.
8. Last of all, there appear in history not a few Mixed
Councils (concilia mixta) ; assemblies in which the ecclesiastical
and civil rulers of a kingdom meet together in order to take
counsel on the affairs of Church and State. We come across
them particularly in the beginning of the middle ages,—not
unfrequently in France, in Germany, in England, in Spain,
and in Italy. Of this character are the fourth to the seventh
Synods of Toledo, many synods held under Pepin, under
Charles the Great [Charlemagne] and his successors, among
others the Synod of Mainz, a.p. 852, and that held in the
year 876 in the Palatiwm apud Ticinum, at which the elec-
tion of Charles the Fat was approved by the bishops and
princes of Italy... We shall further on meet with several
English mixed councils, at which even abbesses were present.
All such assemblies were naturally summoned by the King,
who presided and brought forward the points which had to.
be discussed. The discussion was either carried on in common,.
or the clergy and the nobility separated, and formed different.
chainbers,—a chamber of nobles, and a chamber of bishops,.
—the latter discussing only ecclesiastical questions. The de-.
cisions were often promulgated in the form of royal decrees.”
Six grounds for the convocation of great councils, particu~
larly cecumenical councils, are generally enumerated :
1. When a dangerous heresy or schism has arisen.
2. When two Popes oppose each other, and it is doubtful
which is the true one.
3. When the question is, whether to decide upon some
ereat and universal undertaking against the enemies of the
Christian name.
4. When the Pope is suspected of heresy or of other
serious faults.
5. When the cardinals have been unable or unwilling to
undertake the election of a Pope.
6. When it is a question of the reformation of the Church,
in its head and members.
1 Hard. vi. 169.
2 Cf. Salmon, Traité de Etude des Conciles, p. 851 fi., Paris 1726,
6 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Besides these, there may be many other kinds of reasons
for the convocation of smaller synods; but all must have
reference to the one supreme aim of all councils—*“the pro-
motion of the well-being of the Church through the mutual
consultation of its pastors.” In the ancient Church there
were very many synods assembled, in order to resolve the
contests of the bishops with one another, and to examine
the charges brought against some of their number.
Sec. 3. By whom are Synods convoked ?
If it is asked who convokes councils, there can be no con-
troversy with regard to the greatest number of the eight kinds
just specified. It is undoubted, that the ecclesiastical head of
the diocese, the bishop, has to summon the diocesan synod ;
the ecclesiastical head of the province, the metropolitan, the
provincial synod ; the ecclesiastical head of a nation, a patri-
archate, etc., the patriarch or primate, either at his own in-
stance or at the wish of another, as cf the sovercign, calls a
national or primatial synod. It is equally clear, that when
several provinces meet in a combined synod, the right of con-
vocation belongs to the most distinguished among the metro-
politans who meet. At the σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα, it was, of
course, naturally exercised by the Bishop of Constantinople.
Consequently, and from the very nature of the case, the sum-
mons to an cecumenical council must go forth from the cecu-
menical head of the Church, the Pope; except in the case,
which is hardly an exception, in which, instead of the Pope,
the temporal protector of the Church, the Emperor, with the
previous or subsequent approval and consent of the Pope,
summons a council of this kind. The case is similar with
the other synods, particularly national synods. In the case
of these, too, the temporal protector of the Church has occa-
sionally issued the summons instead of the ecclesiastical ruler ;
and this not merely in ancient times in the Greco-Roman
Church, but also later in the German and Roman States.
Thus, ¢.g., Constantine the Great convoked the Synod of Arles
in 314, and Theodosius the Great the Synod of Constan-
tinople (already mentioned) in 381, in concert with the four
Eastern patriarchs ; Childebert, king of the Franks, a national
INTRODUCTION. 7
‘synod at Orleans in the year 549 ;* and Charles the Great,
in the year 794, the great Synod of Frankfurt.’ Even the
Arian sovereign, Theodoric the Great, at the beginning of the
sixth century, gave orders for the discontinuance of several
orthodox synods at Rome. Further examples are noted by
“Hardouin.’
Among those councils which were called by the emperors,
the latter undertook many kinds of expenses, particularly the
expense of travelling incurred by the numerous bishops, for
whom they ordered houses and carriages to be put at. their
disposal at the public expense. This was done by Constan-
tine the Great at the calling of the Synods of Arles and
Nica. They also provided for the entertainment of the
‘bishops during the sitting of those assemblies.* At the later
councils—those of Florence and Trent, for example—many
of the expenses were borne by the Popes, the Christian
princes, and the cities in which the synods were held.
Bellarmin endeavoured to prove,’ that it was formally
recognised in the ancient Church that the calling of synods
belonged to the hierarchical chiefs, and the summoning of
ecumenical councils in particular to the Pope; but several
of the passages which he adduces in proof are from the
Pseudo-Isidore, and therefore destitute of all importance, while
others rest upon an incorrect explanation of the words re-
ferred to. Thus, Bellarmin appeals above all to the legates
of Leo 1, who at the fourth Gicumenical Council—that of
Chalcedon in 451-—had demanded the deposition of the
Patriarch Dioscurus of Alexandria, because he had ventured
to call an cecumenical council without permission from Rome.
Their words are: σύνοδον ἐτόλμησε ποιῆσαι ἐπιτροπῆς δίχα
τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου In their obvious meaning, these
words bear the sense indicated, and they are generally so ex-
plained. As, however, Pope Leo the Great had, by sending
his legates, recognised and confirmed the summoning of the
1 Hard. ii. 1448. 2 Hard. iv. 882.
3 Hard. xi. 1078.
4 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. x. 5, p. 892, ed. Mog. ; De Vita Const. iv. 6,9.
5 Disputationes, t. i. 1. i. c. 12.
8 Hard. Coll. Conc. ὃ. ii. p. 68 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 581.
8 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Latrocinium,' or Robber-Synod—for it is to this that the
reference is made— we are under the necessity of under-
standing that Dioscurus was accused at Chalcedon of thrust-
ing the papal legates into the background, and taking the
direction and presidency of the Council into his own hands.
This is the way in which it is understood by the Ballerini?
and by Arendt.2 At the same time, it must not be over-
looked that the general nature of the expression of which
the papal legates made choice at Chalcedon, certainly in-
volves the other side of the papal claim, and implies not
only the right to preside over synods, but to convoke them.
Bellarmin appeals further to the seventh Qcumenical
Council, which in its sixth session rejected the iconoclastic
Synod of 754, and refused to recognise it as cecumenical, for
this very reason, that the summons for its assembling did not
go forth from the Pope. What the Synod does in fact say,
however, is, that “this Synod had not the Roman Pope as its
co-operator” (οὐκ ἔσχε συνεργὸν τὸν τῶν Ρωμαίων πάπαν). ἡ
There is nothing said in particular of the Pope’s taking part
or not in the swmmoning of the Synod.
On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that, according to
Socrates,’ Julius 1, even in his time, about the year 341, ex-
pressed the opinion that it was an ecclesiastical canon, μὴ δεῖν
Tapa γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ‘Pwuns κανονίζειν τὰς ἐκκλησίας ;
and there can be no doubt, if these words are impartially con-
sidered, that they mean that it was “not lawful to pass canons
of universal obligation at synods without the consent of the
Bishop of Rome.” The question which is here to be decided,
however, is this: Who, as a matter of fact, called or co-ope-
rated in calling the cecumenical synods? And the answer
is: The first eight cecumenical synods were convoked by the
Emperors, all later ones by the Popes; but even in the case of
the early synods, there is a certain participation of the Pope
1 See, for an account of this Synod, Milman, Lat. Christianity, vol. i. p. 190,
—Ep.
* §. Leonis, Opp. t. ii. p. 460, not. 15.
3 Monographie δ. P. Leo d. Gr. 8. 279,
4 Hard. iv. 327.
§ Hist. Eccl, ii. 17.
INTRODUCTION. 9
in convoking them, which in individual cases is more or less
clearly seen.
1. The fact that the summons to the first GEcumenical
Synod proceeded from the Emperor Constantine the Great,
cannot be disputed. As, however, none of the letters have
come down to us, we cannot tell whether they referred to any
consultation with the Pope. On the other hand, it is un-
deniable that the sixth Gicumenical Synod in 680 expressly
asserted” that the Synod of Niceea was summoned by the
Emperor and Pope Sylvester (Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ ἀεισεβέστατος
kai Σίλβεστρος ὁ ἀοίδιμος τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ μεγάλην τε καὶ περί-
βλεπτον συνέλεγον civodov).2 The same is stated in the
ancient Liber Pontificalis* attributed to Pope Damasus ; and if
this authority be considered of slight value, the importance of
the former must be admitted. Had the sixth Ccumenical
Council been held in the West, or at Rome itself, its testi-
mony might perhaps seem partial; but as it took place at
Constantinople, and at a time when the bishops of that place
had already appeared as rivals of the Bishop of Rome, and
moreover the Greeks formed by far the greater number present
at the Synod, their testimony for Rome must be regarded as
of great importance. Hence even Rufinus, in his continua-
tion of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius,’ says that the
Emperor summoned the Synod of Nicza at the suggestion of
the priests (ex sententia sacerdotum); and certainly, if several
bishops were consulted on the subject, among them must.
have been the chief of them all, the Bishop of Rome.
2. With regard to the second GEécumenical Synod, it is com-
monly asserted,° that the bishops who composed it themselves.
declared that they were assembled at Constantinople in ac-
cordance with a letter of Pope Damasus to the Emperor Theo-
dosius the Great.’ But the document which has been relied
1 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 6.
* This was more than 300 years after, and we know not on what authority
the statement was made.—Ep.
3 Hard. iii. 1417.
4 Οὗ an article by Dr. Hefele in the Tiibinger Quartalschrift, 1845, S. 320 ff
§ Lib. i. c. i.
δ Even by Hefele himself, in Aschbach’s Kirchenlexicon, Bd. 2, 5. 161.
7 Theodoret ; Hist. Eccl. v. 9.
10 HISTORY OF THE CUUNCILS.
_ upon as authority, refers not to the Synod of the year 381,
the second cecumenical, but, as we shall show further on in
the history of this Council, to the Synod of the year 382}
which actually did meet in accordance with the wish of Pope
-Damasus and the Western Synod at Aquileia, but was not
cecumenical. It is without effect, moreover, that Baronius
appeals to the sixth Gicumenical Council to prove that Pope
-Damasus had a part in the calling of the second Gicumenical
Synod. For what the Council says is this : “When Macedonius
_spread abroad a false doctrine respecting the Holy Spirit,
Theodosius and Damasus immediately opposed him, and Gre-
gory of Nazianzus and Nectarius (his successor in the See of
Constantinople) assembled a synod in this royal city.”? This
passage is obviously too vague and indefinite to afford grounds
for concluding that Pope Damasus co-operated in the sum-
moning of the Synod. Nay more, the words, “Gregory of
Nazianzus and Nectarius assembled a synod,” rather exclude
than include the co-operation of Damasus. Besides, it should
not be forgotten that the Synod in question, held a.p. 381, as
we have already remarked, was not originally regarded as
cecumenical, and obtained this rank at a later period on its
being received by the West. It was summoned as a general
council of the Greek or Eastern Church; and if the Pope had
no share in convoking it, no inference can be drawn from
this fact unfavourable to his claim to summon cecumenical
synods.
3. The third Gicumenical Council at Ephesus, in the year
. 401, was summoned, as the Acts prove,’ by the Emperor
Theodosius, in union with his Western colleague Valentinian
I. It is clear, however, that the Pope Celestine 1. concurred,
_from his letter to Theodosius, dated May 15, 431, in which
_he says that he cannot personally be present at the Synod, but
will send his representatives.* Still more distinct is his letter
to the Council itself, dated May 8, 431, in which he sets
before the assembled bishops their duty to protect the orthodox
1 Cf. the hotes of Valesius to Theodoret ; Hist. Eccl. v. 9.
2 Hard. iii. p. 1419.
3 Mansi, t. iv. p. 1111; Hard. t. i. p. 1343,
4 Mansi, iv. 1291; Hard. i. 1473.
INTRODUCTION. ; “Fl
faith, expresses his expectation that they will agree to the
sentence which he has already pronounced upon Nestorius,
and adds that he has sent his legates, in order that they may
give effect to this sentence at Ephesus." The members of
the Synod themselves saw and acknowledged that there was
here not merely an assent to the convocation of the Synod,
but also directions for their guidance, inasmuch as they:xle-
clare, in their most solemn act, the sentence of condemnation
against Nestorius: “Compelled by the canons and by the
letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine,
Bishop of Rome, we have come to this sad sentence of con-
demnation upon Nestorius.”? They expressed the same when
they said that “the letter of the Apostolic See (to Cyril, which
he had communicated to the Synod of Ephesus) had already
set forth the sentence and rule to be followed (ψῆφον καὶ
τύπον) in the case of Nestorius; and they, the assembled
bishops, had, in accordance with this judgment, followed up
this rule.”* It is herein clearly acknowledged that the Pope
had not simply, like other bishops, so to speak, passively
agreed to the convocation of the Synod by the Emperor, but
had actively prescribed to the Synod rules for their guidance ;
-and had thus, not in the literal sense, but in a sense higher
and more real, called them to their work.
4, The manner in which the fourth Gicumenical Synod at
Chalcedon, A.D. 451, met together, we learn from several letters
of Pope Leo 1, and of the Emperors Theodosius 11. and Mar-
-cian. Immediately after the end of the unhappy Robber-
Synod, Pope Leo requested the Emperor Theodosius 11. (October
13, 449) to bring together a greater council, assembled from
all parts of the world, which might best meet in Italy.* He
repeated this request at Christmas in the same year,’ and be-
sought the Emperor of the West also, Valentinian 11, together
with his wife and mother, to support his request at the Byzan-
tine Court. Leo renewed his petition on the 16th of July
-450, but at the same time expressed the opinion that the
1 Mansi, l.c. p. 1283; Hard. y. 1467.
2 Mansi, U.c. p. 1226; Hard. lc. p. 1431. 3 Hard. lc. p. ΜΩ͂ς
4 Leo. Hp. 44 (ed. Ballerini, 1, 1: De ike 5 Ep. 54.
6 Epp. 55-58. 2
7 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Council would not be necessary, if the bishops without it
would subscribe an orthodox confession of faith.! About this
time Theodosius 1. died, and was succeeded by his sister S.
Pulcheria and her husband Marcian. Both of them intimated
immediately to the Pope their disposition to call the Synod
which had been desired, and Marcian in particular asked the
Pope to write and inform him whether he would attend per-
sonally or by legates, so that the necessary invitations might
be issued to the Eastern bishops.? But Pope Leo now wished
at least for a postponement of the Council. He went even so
far as to say that it was no longer necessary ; a change in his
views which has often been made a ground of reproach to
him, but which will be thoroughly discussed and justified at.
the proper place in this History of the Councils. We will only
point out, at present, that what Leo had mentioned in his
69th letter, during the lifetime of Theodosius 11, as a reason
for dispensing with the Council, had actually taken place
under Marcian and Pulcheria, inasmuch as nearly ail the
bishops who had taken part in the Robber-Synod had re-
pented of their error, and in conjunction with their orthodox
colleagues had signed the epistola dogmatica of Leo to Flavian,
which was, in the highest sense, an orthodox confession of
faith. Moreover, the incursions of the Huns in the West had
made it then impossible for the Latin bishops to leave their
homes in any great number, and to travel to the distant
Chalcedon; whilst Leo naturally wished, in the interest of
orthodoxy, that many of the Latins should be present at the
Synod. Other motives contributed to the same desire ; among
these the fear, which the result proved to be well grounded,
that the Synod might be used for the purpose of altering the
hierarchical position of the Bishop of Constantinople. As,
however, the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the
Synod, the Pope gave his consent to its assembling, appointed
legates, and wrote to the Synod describing their duties and
business.” And thus he could say with justice, in his later
epistle, addressed to the bishops assembled at Chalcedon,‘
that the Council was assembled “by the command of the
1 Ep. 69. 2 Epp. 73 and 76, among those of 5. Leo.
3 Epp. 89-95. 4 Ep. 114.
INTRODUCTION. 13
Christian princes, and with the consent of the Apostolic See”
(cx precepto Christianorum principum et ex consensu apos-
tolicee sedis); as, on the other hand, the Emperor at an earlier
period wrote to the Pope, “ The Synod is to be held te auctore.” *
The Pope’s share in convoking the Council of Chalcedon was,
moreover, so universally acknowledged, that, soon after, the
Bishop of Meesia said, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor
Leo: “ Many bishops are assembled at Chalcedon by the order
of Leo the Roman Pontiff, who is truly the head of the bishops ”
(per jussionem Leonis Romani Pontificis, gui vere caput episco-
porum). ἢ
5. There can be no doubt that the fifth GEcumenical Synod
in the year 553, like the first four, was convoked by the
Emperor (Justinian I.); but it is also certain that it was not
without consultation with the Pope. Vigilius says himself
that le had agreed with the Emperor Justinian, in the pre-
sence of the Archbishop Mennas of Constantinople and other
ecclesiastical and civil rulers, that a great synod should be
held, and that the controversy over the three chapters should
rest until this synod should decide 10. Vigilius expressed
his desire for such a synod in a second letter ad universam
ecclesiam,* whilst he strongly disapproved of the Emperor’s in-
tention of putting an end to the controversy by an imperial
edict, and was for that reason obliged to take to flight. When
they had become reconciled, Vigilius again expressed his desire
for the holding of a synod which should decide the contro-
versy ;’ and the deputies of the fifth Council afterwards de-
clared that he had promised to be present at the Synod.®
What is certain is, that Vigilius had desired the postponement
of the opening, in order to wait for the arrival of several Latin
bishops; and in consequence, notwithstanding repeated and
most respectful invitations, he took no part in the sessions of
the Synod.’ The breach was widened when, on the 14th of
May 553, the Pope published his Constitutwm, declaring that
1Ep. 73. 2 Hard. ii. p. 710.
3 Cf. Frag. damnationis Theodori (Aseide) in Hardouin, t. iii. p. 8 CE
Schréckh, Kircheng. Bd. xviii. S. 590.
4 Hard. iii. p. 3. 5 Hard. iii. p. 12 E, and p. 13 B.
Sic. p. 65 B. 1 Hard. Uc. 63, 65 ss.
14 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
he could not agree with the anathematizing of Theodore of’
Mopsuestia and Theodoret.* At the suggestion of the Emperor,
the Synod at its seventh session, May 26, 553, decided that
the name of Vigilius should be struck out of the diptychs,
which was done, so that the Pope and the Council were now
in open antagonism. In his decree to Eutychius of Constan-
tinople, however, dated December 8, 553, and in his second
Constitutum of February 23, 554, Vigilius approved of the
decrees of the fifth Synod, and pronounced the bishops who
had put them forth—that is, the members of the Synod—to
be his brethren and his fellow-priests.’ 3
6. The case of the sixth Gicumenical Synod, a.v. 680, is
quite the same as that of the third. The Emperor Constan-
tine Pogonatus convoked 10,7 and requested the Pope to send
legates to it.4 Pope Agatho, however, not only did this, which
involves an assent to the imperial convocation of the Synod ;
but he sent to the Emperor, and thus also to the Council, a
complete exposition of the orthodox faith, and thus prescribed
to it a rule and directions for its proceedings; and the Synod
acknowledged this, as the Synod of Ephesus had done, inas-
much as they say, in their letter to Agatho, “Through that
letter from thee we have overcome the heresy . . . and have
eradicated the guilty by the sentence previously brought con-
cerning them through your sacred letter” (ex sententia per sacras
vestras literas de vis prius lata).
7. The seventh Cicumenical Synod—the second of Nica,
in the year 787—was suggested to the Empress Irene by the
Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, who endeavoured to re-
store the reverence for images and union with Rome. The
Empress and her son, the Emperor Constantine, approved of
this; but before the imperial letters of convocation were
issued, they sent an ambassador to Pope Hadrian 1. with a
letter (785), in which they requested him to be present at the
projected (Ecumenical Synod, either personally or at least .
1 Hard. lc. pp. 10-48. [This must be distinguished from the Constitutum
of 554.] Per eee ae
*See at the end of this (7onstitutum in Hard. iii. pp. 218-244; and in ©
the decree, ib. pp. 218-218. ᾿ i.
3 Hard. iii, p. 1055, > Ale. p. 1459. 5 Hard, 111, 1438,
INTRODUCTION. ΤῸ:
by his representatives.’ In the October of the same year,
Hadrian I. sent an answer to the Emperor and Empress, as well
as to the Patriarch, and promised to send his legates to the
intended Synod, which he afterwards did, and thereby practi-
cally declared his consent to its convocation. Nay more, in
his letter to Charles the Great, he goes so far as to say,
«And thus they held that Synod according to our appoint-
ment” (ct sic synodum istam secundum nostram ordinationem) ;
and thereby ascribes to himself a still closer participation in
the holding of this Synod.”
8. The last synod which was convoked by an’ emperor was
the eighth cecumenical, which was held at Constantinople in
the year 869. The Emperor Basil the Macedonian had de-
throned his former colleague Michael m1, or The Drunken,
and deposed his creature, the schismatical Photius, from the
patriarchal chair, replacing the unlawfully deposed Ignatius,
and thereby restoring the union of the Greek and Latin
Churches. As, however, Photius still had followers, the Em-
peror considered it necessary to arrange the ecclesiastical re-
lations by means of a new cecumenical council, and for that
purpose sent an embassy to Pope Nicolas L, requesting him
to send his representatives to the intended Council. In the
meantime Nicolas died; but his successor, Hadrian IL, not
only received the imperial message, but sent the legates, as.
it had been wished, to the Council, and thereby gave his
consent to the convocation of this Ecumenical Synod.’
All the subsequent cecumenical synods were held in the
West, and summoned directly by the Popes, from the first of
Lateran, the ninth Cicumenical Synod, to the holy Synod of
Trent, while smaller synods were still convoked by Kings and
Emperors ;* and Pope Leo x. declared in the most decided »
way, at the eleventh session of the fifth Lateran Synod, with
a polemical reference to the so-called propositions of Con-
stance, that the Pope had the right to convoke, to transfer,
and to dissolve cecumenical synods.”
? Hard. iv. 21 ss. ? Hard. iv. 818 E. 2 Hard. v. 765, 766.
* Hard. xi, 1078 sq, 5 Hard ix. 1828 a.
16 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Sec. 4. Members of Councils.
In considering the further question, who has a right to be
a member of a synod, it is necessary first to distinguish be-
tween the diocesan and other synods. For whilst in the
latter either the only members or at least the chief members
are bishops, the diocesan synod, with the exception of the
president, is made up of the other clergy; and whilst the
privileged members of the other synods have a votwm deci-
sivum, a vote in determining the decrees of the synod, those
of the diocesan synod have only a votum consultativum, a
right to be present and speak, but not to vote on the decrees.
Here the bishop alone decides, the others are only his coun-
sellors, and the decision is pronounced in his name. The
members of the diocesan synod are divided into three classes.
1. Those whom the bishop is bound to swmmon, and who
are bound to appear. To this class belong deans, archpres-
byters, vicarit foranei,' the vicar-general, the parochial clergy
by deputies ; and, according to more recent law and custom,
the canons of cathedral churches, the provost and canons of
collegiate churches, and the abbates sceculares.”
2. Those whom the bishop may, but need not summon, but
who are bound to come when he summons them ; for example,
the prebendaries of cathedrals who are not canons.
3. Lastly, those who in general are not bownd to appear, as
the clerict simplices. But if the synod has for its special pur-
pose to introduce an improvement in the morals of the clergy,
or to impart to them the decisions of a provincial synod, these
must also appear when they are summoned.
With respect to the members of other kinds of synods,
ancient Church history gives us the following results :—
+ i.e. vicars-general for districts outside the bishop’s see.—ED.
2 It is more difficult to settle the question with reference to the regular clergy.
Among these must be distinguished the exempt and the non-exempt. The
latter, abbots and monks, must appear. The exempt regulars are divided into
two classes: (1) those who, in conjunction with other houses of their own orders,
are under a general chapter; and (2) those who, being free, are subject to no such
higher authority. The latter must appear; the former generally not. They,
however, are also bound to appear if they have parish churches or any other
cure of souls. So it was ordered by the Council of Trent, sess. xxiv. c. 2,
De reform.
INTRODUCTION, 17
1. The earliest synods were those held in Asia Minor
about the middle of the second century, on the occasion of
Montanism. Eusebius does not say who were present at
them ;* but the libellus synodicus informs us that one of these
synods was held at Hierapolis by Bishop Apollinaris with
twenty-six other bishops, anda second at Anchialus by Bishop
Sotas and twelve other bishops.”
2. The next synods in order were those which were held
respecting the celebration of Easter, in the second half of the
second century. With reference to these, Polycrates of
Ephesus tells us that Pope Victor had requested him to con-
voke in a synod the bishops who were subordinate to him,
thot he did so, and that many bishops had assembled with
him in synod.® In the chapters of Eusebius in which these
two classes of councils are spoken of,* only bishops are men-
tioned as members of the Synod. And, in the same way, the
libellus synodicus gives the number of bishops present at each
council of this time, without referring to any other members.
3. The letters of convocation for an cecumenical synod
were directed to the metropolitans, and to some of the more
eminent bishops; and the metropolitans were charged to give
notice to their suffragans. So it was, ¢g., at the convocation
of the third G2cumenical Synod, for which an invitation was
sent to Augustine, who was already dead.” The invitation to
appear at the synod was sometimes addressed to the bishops
collectively, and sometimes it was simply required that the
metropolitans should personally appear, and bring merely the
most able of their suffragans with them. The latter was the
case, ¢.g.,in the summoning of the third and fourth Councils ; ὅ
to Niceea, on the contrary, the bishops seem to have been in-
vited without distinction. Sometimes those bishops who did
not attend, or who arrived too late, were threatened with
penalties, as well by the Emperors, e.g. by Theodosius IL, as
hy earlier and later ecclesiastical canons.’
4. The chorepiscopt (χωρεπίσκοποι), or bishops of country
1 Hist. Eccl. v. 16. 2 See, further on, Book i. 6. i. sec. 1.
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. 4 Loc. cit.
5 Hard. i. 1419. 6 Hard. i. 1848, ii. 45.
7 Hard. i. 1346, 988 B, 1622; ii. 774, 1043, 1174; iii. 1029 ; vii. 1812; viii. 960.
B
18 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
places, seem to have been considered in ancient times as quite
on a par with the other bishops, as far as their position in
synods was concerned. We meet with them at the Councils
of Neocesarea in the year 314, of Nica in 325, of Ephesus
in 431.4 On the other hand, among the 600 bishops of the
fourth GEcumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, there is no
chorepiscopus present, for by this time the office had been
abolished; but in the middle ages we again meet with chor-
episcopt of a new kind at Western councils, particularly at
those of the French Church, at Langres in 890,2 at Mainz in
8473 at Pontion in 876, at Lyons in 886, at Douzy in 871+
Bishops without a diocese have a certain resemblance to these;
and such we meet with at synods, as in the year 585 at
Macon in France.? It is disputed whether those who are
merely titular bishops have a right to vote at a council; and
it has generally been decided in this way, that there is no
obligation to summon such, but when they are summoned
they have a right to vote.®
5. Towards the middle of the third century we find a de-
parture from this ancient practice of having only bishops as
members of synods, first in Africa, when Cyprian assembled,
at those synods which he held with reference to the restora-
tion of the lapsed, besides the bishops of his province and his
clergy, confessores et laicos stantes, 1.06. those laymen who lay
under no ecclesiastical penance.’ So there were present at
the Synod held by S. Cyprian on the subject of baptism by
heretics, on the 1st of September (probably a.p. 256), besides
eighty-seven bishops, very many priests and deacons, and
maxima pars plebis. And the Roman clergy, in their letter
to Cyprian® on the subject, request that the bishops will take
counsel in synods, in common with the priests, deacons, and”
laicis stantibus. It must not be overlooked, however, that
Cyprian makes a difference between the membership of the
1 Hard. i. 286, 314-820, 1486. 2 Hard. iv. 1364.
3 Hard. v. 5.
4 Hard. vi. 180, 396; v. 1816 B, 1318. 5 Hard. iit. 466.
6 Walter, Kirchenr. (Canon Law), 5. 157 (S. 294, 11th ed.}.
7 Cypriani Zp. 11, p. 22; Ep. 18, p. 23; Hp. 66, p. 114; Hp. 71, p. 126
(ed. Baluz.) ;
᾿ ὃ Cypriani Opp. p. 329 (ed. Bal.). , 9 Cyp. Epp. 31, p. 43.
INTRODUCTION. 19
bishops and of others. We learn from his thirteenth letter}
that the bishops come together with the clergy, and the laity
are only present (preepositi cum clero convenientes, proesente etiam
stantium plebe); from his sixty-sixth letter, that the priests,
etc., were the assessors of the bishops (compresbyteri, qui nobis
assidebant). In other places Cyprian speaks only of the
bishops as members of the synod,’ and from other passages?
it-comes out that the bishops had at these synods taken the
advice and opinion of the laity as well as the clergy. It 15
never, however, in the least degree indicated that either the
clergy or the laity had a votwm decisivwm; but the contrary
is evident, namely, that in the Synod of Cyprian referred to,
which was held September 1, 256, only bishops were voters.‘
6. Eusebius relates’ that a great number of bishops of
Asia assembled in synod at Antioch in the year 264 or 265,
on the subject of Paul of Samosata, and he adds that their
priests and deacons came with them. In the following
chapter Eusebius gives an account of the Synod at Antioch in
269, and makes special reference to the priest of Antioch,
Malchion, who was present at the Synod, and by his logical
ability compelled Paul of Samosata, who wanted to conceal
his false doctrine, to explain himself clearly. In addition to
this, Eusebius gives in the thirtieth chapter the circular letter
which this Synod, after pronouncing the deposition of Paul,
addressed to the rest of the Church. And this letter is sent
forth not in the name of the bishops only, but of the other
clergy who were present as well; and among these Malchion
is named in the superscription, whilst the names of many of
the bishops—-and according to Athanasius there were seventy
present—are wanting. We see, then, that priests and deacons
were members of several synods; but we cannot determine
from the original documents how far their rights extended,
and whether they had more than a mere consultative voice in
the acts of the synod. As far as analogy can guide us, it
would appear they had no more.
7. In the two Arabian Synods which were held on the.
2 Pp. 238,: $29. * Ep. 71, p. 127; Ep. 78, pp. 129, 180.
3 Ep. 11, p. 22; Ep. 13, p. 23; Ep. 81, p. 43.
“ Cyp. Opp. pp. 830-338 (ed. Baluz.). | 5 Hist. Eccl. vii, 28.
20 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
subject of Beryllus and the Hypnopsychites, Origen held a
place similar to that which had been occupied by Malchion.
The bishops summoned him to the Synod, so as to render his
learning and ability serviceable to the Church; but it was the
bishops themselves who held the Synod.
8. In many synods of the following centuries, besides the
bishops, priests and deacons were present. So it was at
Elvira, at Arles,? at Carthage* in 397, at Toledo* in 400,
etc. The bishops and priests had seats, but the deacons had
to stand. The decrees of the ancient synods were for the
most part signed only by the bishops. It was so at the
Councils of Ancyra, of Neocssarea—although in this case the
subscriptions are somewhat doubtful; at the first and second
(Ecumenical Councils, those of Nica and Constantinople ; at
the Councils of Antioch in 341, of Sardica, etc. Sometimes
also the priests and deacons subscribed the decrees, and then
either immediately after the name of their own bishop, as at
Arles, or else after the names of all the bishops.’ It was,
however, not so common for the priests and deacons to join
in the subscription, and it did not occur in the fourth or
fifth century: for we find that, even in the case of synods at
which we know that priests and deacons were present, only
bishops subscribed; as at Niczea, at Carthage in 397, 389,
401. at Toledo in 400, and at the Cicumenical Councils of
Ephesus and Chalcedon.” At a later period we meet again,
at some synods, with signatures of priests and deacons, as at
Lyons in 830." The difference between the rights of the
priests and those of the bishops is made clear by the signa-
tures of the Council of Constantinople under Flavian in 448.
The deposition of Eutyches which was there pronounced was
subscribed by the bishops with the formula, opicas tréypawa,
definiens subscripst, and afterwards by twenty-three archiman-
drites, or superiors of convents, merely with the word ὑπέγραψα
without opicas.” At the Robber-Synod of Ephesus, on the
' Hard. i. 250. 2 Hard. i. 966. 3 Hard. i. 961.
4 Hard. i. 989. 5 Hard. i. 989, 961, 250. 6 Hard. i. 266 ss,
7 Hard. i. 250. 8 Hard. i. 971, 986, 988. %7.c. p. 992.
20 ὁ. 6. p. 1423 ss., ii. 466 ss. 11 Hard. iv. 1365 8.
12 Hard. ii. 167.
INTRODUCTION. 41
contrary, along with other anomalies, we find the Archiman-
drite Barsumas of Syria signing, as a fully privileged member
of the Synod, with the word opicas, and that because the
Emperor Theodosius 11. had summoned him expressly.
9. It is easily understood, and it is shown by the ancient
acts of councils, that priests and deacons, when they were
the representatives of their bishops, had a right to give, like
them, a votwm decisivum, and subscribed the acts of the synod
with the formula opicas.? And this is expressed at a much
later period by the Synods of Rouen in 1581, and of Bor-
deaux in 15838,—by the latter with the limitation that only
priests should be sent as the representatives of the bishops.’
10. Other clergymen, deacons in particular, were employed
at synods, as secretaries, notaries, and the like—at Ephesus
and Chalcedon, for instance ;* and they had often no insignifi-
cant influence, particularly their head, the primicerius nota-
giorum, although they had no vote. Some of these notaries
were official, and were the servants of the synod ; but besides
these, each bishop could bring his own notary or secretary
with him, and employ him to make notes and minutes of the
sessions: for it was only at the Robber-Synod that the violent
Dioscurus allowed no other notaries than his own, and those
of some of his friends.” From the nature of the case, there
is nothing to prevent even laymen from being employed in
such work; and we are informed distinctly by Afneas Sylvius
that he performed such duties, as a layman, at the Synod of
Basle. It is, moreover, not at all improbable that the secre-
tari divine consistorit, who were present at some of the ancient
synods—at Chalcedon, for instance—were secretaries of the
Imperial Council, and consequently laymen.°
11. Besides the bishops, other ecclesiastics have always
been brought in at councils, cecumenical as well as inferior,
for the purpose of consultation, particularly doctors of theo-
logy and of canon law,’ as well as deputies of chapters and
2 Hard. ii. 272. 2 Hard. i. 815 ss., ii. 272. 3 Hard. x. 1264, 1379.
4 Hard. i. 1355, ii. 67, 70, 71 ss. 5 Hard. ii. 93.
6 Fuchs, Biblioth. d. Kirchenvers. (Library of Councils), Bd. i. S. 149.
7 Thomas Aquinas was in this way summoned by Pope Gregory x. to the
fourteenth Gcumenical Council.
ἊΣ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
superiors of monasteries ; and bishops were even requested to
bring such assistants and counsellors with them to the synod.
So it was at the Spanish Council at Tarragona in 516 But,
at the same time, the fundamental principle is undoubted,
that the vote for the decision of a question belonged to the
bishops, as to those whom the Holy Ghost has appointed to
tule the Church of God, and to all others only a consultative
voice ; and this was distinctly recognised by the Synods of
Rouen in 1581, and Bordeaux in 1583 and 1684, partly in
the most general way,’ in part specifically with reference to
the deputies of chapters, titular and commendatory abbots.*
There has been a doubt with respect to abbots, whether they
held a place similar to that of the bishops or not; and a
different practice seems to have prevailed at different places
and times. We have already seen that in the ancient Church
the archimandrites had no vote, even when they were priests.
On the other hand, a Synod at London, under the famous
Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, 4.p. 1075, declares: “ Be-
sides the bishops and abbots, no one must address the Synod
without the permission of the archbishop.”* The abbots are
here plainly assigned a place of equality with the bishops as
members of the Synod; and they subscribed the acts of this
Synod like the bishops. In the same way the abbots sub-
scribed at other synods, 6.9. at Pontion in France, A.p. 876,
at the Council held in the Palatium Ticinum, at Cavaillon,
and elsewhere ;* but, on the other hand, at many other
councils of the same time, as well as at those of an earlicr
and later period, the bishops alone, or their representatives,
signed the decrees. So it was at Epaon in 517 , at Lyons in
517, at Ilerda and Valencia in Spain in 524, at Arles in
524, at Carthage in 525, at Orange in 529, at Toledo in 531,
at Orleans in 533 ;° so also at Cavaillon in 875, at Beauvais
in 875, at Ravenna in 877, at Tribur in 895... The arch-
deacons seem to have been regarded very much in the same
way as the abbots, inasmuch as they appeared at synods not
1 Hard. ii. 1043. 2 Hard. xi. 132, 3 Hard. x. 1264, 1379.
4 Hard. vi. 1556. ὅ Hard. vi. 188, 169, 174, 180.
© Hard. ii. 1052, 1054, 1067, 1070, 1071, 1082, 1102, 1141, 1175.
7 Hard. vi. 161, 164, 190, 456,
' INTRODUCTION. 23°.
merely as the representatives of their bishops ; but sometimes
they signed the acts of the council, even when their bishop
was personally present. So it was at the Synod of London
already mentioned.’ At the end of the middle ages it was
the common view that abbots and cardinal priests and car-
dinal deacons as well had a votum decisivum at the synods,—
a fact which is expressly stated, as far as regards the abbots,
by the historian of the Synod of Basle, Augustinus Patricius,
a Piccolomini of the fifteenth century.” He adds, that only
the Council of Basle allowed the anomaly, and conceded to
other ecclesiastics the right of voting. But we must remark
that, according to the statement of the famous Cardinal
D’Ailly, even so early as at the Synod at Pisa in 1409, the
doctors of divinity and of canon law had a votwm decisivum ;
and that the Council of Constance extended this right, by
adopting the division of the Council into nations. These
were, however, anomalies; and after this stormy period had
passed by, the ancient ecclesiastical order was restored, that
only bishops, cardinals, and abbots should have the votwm
decisivum. A place of equality with the abbots was naturally
assigned to the generals of those widespread orders, which
had a central authority. This was done at the Council of
Trent. With regard to the abbots, a distinction was made
between those who possessed real jurisdiction, and those who
were only titular or commendatory. To these last. there was
conceded no more than the votwi consultativum ; eg. in the
Synod at Rouen in 1581, and Bordeaux in 1583.3 The former
went so far as to refuse to acknowledge any such right as
belonging to the abbots; and a later synod at Bordeaux, in
the year 1624, plainly declared that it was an error (erronca.
opinio) to affirm that any others besides bishops had a decisive
voice in a provincial synod (preter episcopos quosdam alios
habere vocem decisivam in concilio provinciali)* In practice,
however, abbots were still admitted, only with the distinction
that the bishops were members of the synod * by divine
right” (jure divino), and the abbots only “ by ecclesiastical
appointment” (cnstitutione ceclesiastica).
1 Hard. vi. 1557 ; cf. ib. 138. 3 Hard. ix. 1196.
* Hard. x. 1264, 1879... ... - 4 Hard, xi. 182... *
24 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
12. We have already seen, that in the time of Cyprian,
both in Africa and in Italy, laymen were allowed to be
present at synods. This custom was continued to later times.
Thus, eg., the Spanish Synod at Tarragona, in 516, ordained
that the bishops should bring to the Synod with them, besides
the clergy, their faithful sons of the laity.’ Viventiolus
Archbishop of Lyons, in the letter by which he summoned a
synod at Epaon in 517, says: “ Laicos permittimus intercsse,
ut que a@ solis pontificibus ordinanda sunt ct populus possit
agnoscere.” [We permit the laity to be present, that the
people may know those things which are ordained by the
priests alone.]| Moreover, the laity had the power of bringing
forward their complaints with reference to the conduct of the
clergy, inasmuch as they had a right to ask for priests of good
character.” The fourth Synod of Toledo, in 633, says ex-
pressly, that laymen also should be invited to the synods.*
So, in fact, we meet with distinguished laymen at the eighth
Synod of Toledo in 653, and at the second of Orange in
529.° In English synods we find even abbesses were present.
‘Thus the Abbess Hilda was at the Collatio Pharensis, or Synod
of Whitby, in 664, where the question of Easter and of the
tonsure, and other questions, were discussed ; and the Abbess
At‘lfleda, the successor of Hilda, at the somewhat later Synod
on the Nith in Northumberland. This presence of abbesses
of the royal family is, however, exceptional, even when these
assemblies were nothing else than concilia mixta, as Salmon,
lc, explains them to be. That, however, distinguished and
well-instructed laymen should be introduced without delay
into provincial synods, was expressly decided by the Congre-
gatio interpret. concil. by a decree of April 22,1598; and
the Ceremoniale episcoporum refers to the same, when it speaks
of the seats which were to be prepared at provincial synods
for the laity who were present.’ Pignatelli recommends the
bishops to be prudent in issuing such invitations to the laity ὃ
? Hard. ii. 1043. 2 Hard. ii. 1046. 3 Hard. iii. 580.
“ Hard. iii. 955. 5 Hard. ii. 1102.
δ Hard. 11], 993, 1826 E. Cf. Schrédl, First Century of the English Church
(Das erste Jahrhundert der engl. Kirche), pp. 220, 271. See also Salmon,
Study on the Councils (Traité de l’ Etude des Conciles), Par's 1726, p. 844.
7 Benedict x1v. De synodo diac. lib, iii. c. 9, n. 7. 8 Rened. xiv. Le.
INTRODUCTION. 25
but we still find in 1736 a great many laymen of distinction
present at the great Maronite Council which was held by
Simon Assemani as papal legate." At many synods the laity
present signed the acts; but at others, and these by far the
most numerous, they did not sign. At the Maronite Council
just mentioned, and at the second of Orange, they did sign.
It is clear from the passage already adduced, referring to the
Synod of Epaon, that these laymen were admitted only as
witnesses and advisers, or as complainants. It is remarkable
that the laity who were present at Orange siened with the
very same formula as the bishops,—namely, consentiens sub-
scripst ; Whilst in other cases the bishops made use of the
words definiens subscripsi; and the priests, deacons, and laymen
simply used the word subscripst. As was natural, the position
of the laity at the concilia mixta was different: from the very
character of these, it followed that temporal princes appeared
as fully qualified members, side by side with the prelates of
the Church.”
13. Among the laity whom we find at synods, the Emperors
and Kings are prominent. After the Roman Emperors em-
braced Christianity, they, either personally or by their repre-
sentatives and commissaries, attended the great synods, and
particularly those which were cecumenical. Thus, Constantine
the Great was personally present at the first Gicumenical
Council? Theodosius 1. sent his representatives to the third,
and the Emperor Marcian sent his to the fourth ; and besides,
at a later period, he was personally present, with his wife
Pulcheria, at the sixth session of this Council of Chalcedon‘
So the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus attended at the sixth
(Hcumenical Council ;° at the seventh, on the other hand,
Irene and her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus were present
only by deputies; whilst at the eighth the Emperor Basil
the Macedonian took part, sometimes personally and some
times by representatives.’ Only in the case of the second
and fifth Gicumenical Synods we find neither the Emperors
nor their representatives present ; but the Emperors (Theo-
1 Bened. xiv. 1.8, n. 5. 2 See above, p. 5.
5 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 10. * Hard. i. 1346, ii. 58, 463.
6 Hard. iii. 1055. 5 Hard. iv. 34, 534, 745, v. 764, 828, 896,
26 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
dosius the Great and Justinian) were at the time present in
the city of Constantinople, where those councils were held,
and in constant communication with the Synod.
It was, as we perceive, simply at the cecumenical synods
that the Emperors were present. To this fact Pope Nicholas
I. expressly appeals in his letter to the Emperor Michael, A.D.
865, and infers from it that all other synods ought to be
held without the presence of the Emperor or his representa-
tives. In agreement with this Pope, a few years later the
eighth Cicumenical Council declared, that it was false to
maintain that no synod should be held without the presence
of the Emperor; that, on the contrary, the Emperors had:
been present only at the cecumenical councils ; and, moreover,
that it was not proper for temporal princes to be present at
provincial synods, etc., for the condemnation of the clergy.
They might have added, that so early as the fourth century
the bishops complained loudly when Constantine the Great
sent an imperial commissioner to the Synod of Tyre in 335.9
In the West, on the contrary, the Kings were present even
at national synods. Thus, Sisenand, the Spanish King of the
West Goths, was present at the fourth Council of Toledo in
the year 633, and King Chintilan at the fifth of Toledo in
638;* Charles the Great at the Council of Frankfurt in
794, and two Anglo-Saxon Kings at the Collatio Pharensis,
already mentioned, in 664. We find royal commissaries at
the eighth and ninth Synods of Toledo in 653 and 655.°
In later times the opinion gradually gained ground, that
princes had a right to be present, either personally or by
representatives, only at the cecumenical councils. Thus we
find King Philip le Bel of France at the fifteenth CEcumenical
Synod at Vienne in 1311, the Emperor Sigismund at the
Council of Constance, and the representatives (oratores) of
several princes at the last Ccumenical Synod at Trent.
Pius Iv. and Pius v. forbid the presence of a royal commissary
at the Provincial Synod of Toledo ; but the prohibition came |
too late. When, however, a second Provincial Synod was
' Hard. v. 158 ; and in the Corp. jur. can. c. 4, diss. 96.
* Hard. v. 907, 1108. 3 Athanas. Apolog. contra Arian. n. 8.
4 Hard. iii. 578, 597, δ Hard. iv. 882. 5 Hard. iii. 968, 978,
INTRODUCTION. 27
held at Toledo in 1582, in the presence of a royal commissary,
Rome, 1.6. the Congregatio Concilit, delayed the confirmation
of the decrees until the name of the commissary was erased
from the acts of the Synod. The Archbishop of Toledo, Car-
dinal Quiroga, maintained that such commissaries had been
present at the ancient Spanish synods; but Rome held fast by
the principle, that except in cecumenical synods, whi agitur
de fide, reformatione, et pace (which treated of faith, reforma-
tion, and peace), no commissaries of princes had a right to be
present.’ At the later cecumenical synods, this presence of
princes or of their representatives beyond all doubt had no
other significance than to ensure protection to the synods, to
increase their authority, and to bring before them the special
wishes of the different states and countries. The celebrated
Cardinal D’Ailly long ago expressed this judgment clearly ;?
and, as a matter of fact, there was never conceded to a prince
or his orator the right to vote, unless he was also a bishop.
In reference to the most ancient cecumenical synods, it has
even been maintained that the Emperors were their presidents;
and this leads us to the further question of the presidency of
the synods.
Sec. 5. The Presidency of Councils.
As the presidency of a diocesan synod belongs to the
bishop, of a provincial synod to the metropolitan, of a
national to the primate or patriarch, so, in the nature of the
case, the presidency of an cecumenical council belongs to the
supreme ruler of the whole Church—to the Pope; and this
is so clear, that the most violent partisans of the episcopal
system, who assign to the Pope only a primacy of honour
(primatus honoris), yet do not in the least impugn his right
to preside at cecumenical synods.” The Pope may, however,
exercise this presidency in person, or he may be represented,
as has frequently been the case, by his legates. Against this
1 Benedict x1v. De Synodo dic. lib. iii. Ὁ. 9, n. 6.
? Benedict xiv. ὦ. δι n. 1.
* It is unnecessary to remark that all this is simply a part of the Roman.
system, even as understood by Liberals more advanced than Dr. Hefele. In
ὦ mere translation it would he useless frequently even to point out, much more
to discuss, such questions. —Ep.
28 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
papal right of presidency at cecumenical synods the Reformers
brought forward the objection, that the history of the Church
showed clearly that the Emperors had presided at some of
the first eight councils. There was, indeed, no difficulty in
bringing forward proof in support of their assertion, since
Pope Stephen v. himself writes that the Emperor Constantine
presided at the first Council of Nica,’ and the ancient acts of
the synods frequently refer to a presidency of the Emperor or
his representatives. But all such objections, however dangerous
they may at first seem to be to our position, lose their power
when we come to consider more closely the state of things in
connection with the ancient councils, and are willing to dis-
cuss the matter impartially.
Let us begin with the eighth CEcumenical Synod, as the
last of those which here come into question—that is to say,
the last of the Oriental Synods—-and from this ascend back to
the first.
1. Pope Hadrian 11. sent his legates to the eighth Gicumenical
Synod, on the express written condition, addressed to the
mperor Basil, that they should preside.” The legates, Donatus
Bishop of Ostia, Stephen Bishop of Nepesina, and Marinus a
deacon of Rome, read this letter before the Synod, without the
slightest objection being brought forward. On the contrary,
their names were always placed first in the minutes; the
duration of the sessions was decided by them ; and they gave
permission for addresses, for the reading of the acts of the
Synod, and for the introduction of other members of the
Synod; and appointed the questions for discussion.*® In short,
they appear in the first five sessions without dispute as the
presidents of the Synod. At the sixth and following sessions
the Emperor Basil was present, with his sons Constantine and
Leo; and he obtained the presidency, as the acts relate.‘
But these acts clearly distinguish the Emperor and his sons
from the Synod; for, after naming them, they add, “ the holy
and cecumenical Synod agreeing” (conveniente sancta ac uni-
versalt synodo). ‘Thus we perceive that the Emperor and
his sons are not reckoned among the members of the Synod,
1 Hard. y. 1119. 2 Hard. v. 768, 1030.
3 Hard. v. 781, 782, 783, 785, 786 ss. 4 Hard. v. 823, 838, 896, 1098,
INTRODUCTION. 29
whilst the papal legates are constantly placed first among the
members. It is the legates, too, who in these later sessions
decide the subjects which shall be brought forward :* they
also are the first who sign the acts of the Synod, and that
expressly as presidents ( presidentes) ; whilst the Emperor gave
a clear proof that he did not regard himself as the real presi-
dent, by wishing to sign them after all the bishops. The
papal legates, on the other hand, entreated him to place his.
own and his sons’ names at the top; but he decidedly refused
this, and at last consented to sign after the representatives
of the Pope and the Oriental bishops, and before the other
bishops.” In perfect agreement with this, Pope Hadrian 11,
in his letter to the Emperor, commended him for having been
present at this Synod, not as judge (yudex), but as witness
and protector (conscius et obsccundator).2 Still less than the
Emperors themselves had the imperial commissaries who were
present at synods a right of presidency, since their names were
placed, in all minutes of the sessions, immediately after the
representatives of the patriarchs, but before the other bishops,*
and they did not subscribe the acts at all. On the other hand, it.
may be said that the patriarchs of the East—TIgnatius of Con-
stantinople, and the representatives of the others—in some
measure participated in the presidency, since they are always
named along with the Roman legates, and are carefully dis-
tinguished from the other metropolitans and bishops. They
form, together with the Roman legates, so to speak, the board
of direction, deciding in common with them the order of the
business,’ regulating with them the rule of admission to the
synod. ‘They subscribe, like the legates, before the Emperor,
and are named in the minutes and in the separate sessions:
before the imperial commissaries. But, all this being granted,
the papal legates still take undeniably the first place, inas-
much as they are always the first named, and first subscribe
the acts of the Synod, and, what is particularly to be observed,
at the last subscription make use of the formula, “ presiding
over this holy and cecumenical synod” (hivie sanctee et univer-
sali synodo presidens) ; whilst Ignatius of Constantinople and
1 Hard. v. 898, 912. 2 Hard. v. 921-923, 1106. * Hard. v. 989 A.
* lard. v. 764, 782, 7$8 ss. 5 Hard. v. 898 D, 912 Οἱ
{90 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the representatives of the other patriarchs claim no presidency,
but subscribe simply with the words, “As receiving this holy
and cecumenical synod, and agreeing with all things which it
has decided, and which are written here, and as defining them,
I subscribe” (sanctam hane et universalem synodum suscipiens,
et omnibus que ab ea judicata et scripta sunt concordans, et
definiens subscripsi). Moreover, as we find a remarkable dif-
ference between them and the papal legates, so there is also,
on the other side, a considerable difference between their
signature and that of the other bishops. The latter, like the
Emperor, have simply used the words, suscipiens subscripsi,
without the addition of definiens, by which the votum decisivum
was usually indicated.t
2. At all the sessions of the seventh Gicumenical Synod,
the papal legates, the Archpresbyter Peter and the Abbot
Peter, came first; after them Tarasius Archbishop of Con-
stantinople, and the representatives of the other patriarchs ;
next to them the other bishops; and, last of all, the imperial
commissaries.” The decrees were signed in the same order,
only that the imperial commissaries took no part in the sub-
scription.” The Empress Irene and her son were present at
the eighth and last session of the Council as honorary presi-
dents, and signed the decrees of the first seven sessions, which
had been already signed by the bishops.* According to a
Latin translation of the acts of this Synod, it was only the
papal legates, the Bishop of Constantinople, and the repre-
sentatives of the other Eastern patriarchs, who on this occasion
made use of the word definiens in subscribing the decrees, just
as at the eighth Council;® but the Greek version of the acts
has the word opicas in connection with the signature of the
other bishops. Besides, we must not omit to state that, not-
withstanding the presidency of the papal legates, Tarasius
Archbishop of Constantinople had the real management: of
_the business at this Synod.’
3. At the sixth Gicumenical Synod the Emperor Constan-
1 Hard. v. 923. 3 Hard. iv. 28 ss, 3 Hard. iv. 455 ss., 748. "
4 Hard. iv. 483, 486. 5 Hard. iv. 748 sq. δ᾽ Hard. iv. 457 sq.
7 Compare the author’s essay on the second Council of Nicea, in the Freiburg
Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii. 5, 563.
4 INTRODUCTION. | CSI
- tine Pogonatus was present in person, together with several
_ high officials of the state. The minutes of the sessions name
him as president, and give the names of his officials imme-
diately after his own. They next proceed to the enumeration
of the proper members of the Synod, with the formula, “the
holy and cecumenical Synod being assembled” (συνελθούσης
δὲ καὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς ovvddov),—thereby distin-
euishing, as in the case already mentioned, the Emperor and
his officials from the Synod proper; and name as its first
members the papal legates, the priests Theodore and George,
and the deacon John.’ So these legates are the first to sub-
scribe the acts of the Council; and the Emperor signed at
the end, after all the bishops, and, as is expressly stated, to
give more authority to the decrees of the Synod, and to con-
firm them with the formula, ‘“ We have read and consented ”
(legimus et consensimus).? He thus made a distinction between
himself and the Synod proper; whilst it cannot, however, be
denied that the Emperor and his plenipotentiaries often con-
ducted the business of the Synod.’
4, At the fifth Gicumenical Council, as has been already
pointed out,* neither the Emperor (Justinian) nor yet the Pope
or his legate was present. It was Eutychius, the Archbishop
of Constantinople, who presided.’
5. The fourth Gicumenical Council is of more importance
for the question now before us. So early as on the 24th of
June 451, Pope Leo the Great wrote to the Emperor Marcian
that he had named Paschasinus Bishop of Lilybeum as his
legate (predictum fratrem et cocpiscopum meum vice mea synodo
convent presidere)© This legate, Paschasinus, in the name
of himself and his colleagues (for Leo associated with him two
other legates—the Bishop Lucentius and the Priest Boniface),
at the third session of Chalcedon, issued the announcement
that Pope Leo had commanded them, insignificant as they
were, to preside in his place over this holy synod (nostram
1 Hard. iii. 1055, 1061, 1065, 1072. 2 Hard. iii. 1402, 1414, 1435.
3 Hard. iii. 1059, 1063, 1066, 1070, 1303 A, 1307, 1326, 1327.
4 Pp. 13 and 25. 5 Hard. ili. 202.
6 Leonis Zp. 89, t. i. p. 1062, ed. Baller. That Leo here asserted a right,
and did not merely prefer a petition for the presidency to the Emperor, has
been shown by Peter de Marca, De concord. sacerdotii et imp. lib, v. 6.
32 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
parvitatem hute sancto concilio pro se presidere preccpit);* and
soon after, Pope Leo wrote to the bishops of Gaul, speaking of
his legates, in the following terms: “ My brothers who pre-
sided in my stead over the Eastern Synod” (Fratres mei, qui
vice mea orientali synodo preesederunt).” Pope Vigilius after-
wards asserted the same, when, in a circular letter addressed
to the whole Church, he says, “ over which our predecessor of
holy memory, Pope Leo, presided by his legates and vicars”
(cut sancte recordationis decessor noster papa Leo per legatos suos
veariosque preesedit).® Of still greater importance is it that
the Council of Chalcedon itself, in its synodal letter to Pope
Leo, expressly says, ὧν (ὦ. the assembled bishops) od μὲν ὡς
κεφαλὴ μελῶν ἡγεμόνευες ἐν τοῖς THY σὴν τάξιν ἐπέχουσι : that
is to say, “Thou, by thy representatives, hast taken the lead
among the members of the Synod, as the head among the
members of the body.”* These testimonies—especially the
last—are of so much weight, that they would seem to leave
no room for doubt. And yet, on the other hand, it is a
matter of fact that imperial commissaries had the place of
honour at the Synod of Chalcedon, in the midst, before the
rails of the altar ;° they are the first named in the minutes ; ὃ
they took the votes, arranged the order of the business, closed
the sessions, and thus discharged those functions which belong
to the president of an assembly.’ In the sixth session the
Emperor Marcian was himself present, proposed the questions,
and conducted the business.* In these acts the Emperor and
his commissaries also appear as the presidents, and the papal
legates only as first among the voters. How, then, can we
reconcile the contradiction which apparently exists between
these facts and the statements already made? and how could
the Council of Chalcedon say that, by sending his legates, the
Pope had taken the lead among the members of the Synod ?
The solution of the difficulty is to be found in the same
synodical letter written by the Pope to the Synod. It reads
1 Hard. ii. 310, 5 Leonis Hp. 103, t. i. p. 1141, ed. Baller.
3 Hard. iii. 5. 4 Leonis Hp. 98, t. i. p. 1089, ed. Baller.
5 Hard. ii. 66. 6 Hard, ii, 54, 274 ss,
* Hard. ii. 67, 70, 90, 94, 114, 271, 307.
ὃ Hard. ii. 486 85.
INTRODUCTION. ; Oo
thus: “Faithful Emperors have used the presidency for the
better preservation of order” (βασιλεῖς δὲ πιστοὶ πρὸς εὐ-
κοσμίαν ἐξῆρχον) In fact, this presidency which was
granted to the imperial commissaries referred only to the
outward working—to the material conducting of the business
of the synod. They were not connected with the internal
work, and left the decisions of the synods without interfer-
ence, gave no vote in the determination of questions con-
cerning the faith, and repeatedly distinguished between
themselves and the council. The acts of Chalcedon also
show the same distinction. After having mentioned the
imperial commissaries, they add these words, “ the holy Synod
assembled,”* ete. We may add also, that neither the Emperor
nor his commissaries signed the acts of the Council of Chal-
cedon: it was the Pope’s legate who always signed first, and
repeatedly added to his name, even when the Emperor was
present, the title of synodo preesidens#
We are thus gradually able to explain the double relations
existing between the papal legates and the imperial com-
missaries, quite analogous to that expressed in the words of
Constantine the Great: “And I amabishop. You are bishops
for the interior business of the Church” (τῶν εἴσω τῆς
ἐκκλησίας) ; “I am the bishop chosen by God to conduct the
exterior business of the Church” (ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἐκτὸς ὑπὸ
Θεοῦ καθεσταμένος)" The official conduct of business, so
to speak, the direction τῶν ἔξω as well as the seat of honour,
was reserved for the imperial commissaries. The Pope’s legates,
although only having the first place among the voters, had
the presidency, κατὰ τὰ εἴσω, of the synod, that is, of the
assembly of the bishops im specie; and when the imperial
commissaries were absent, as was the case during the third
session, they had also the direction of the business.®
6. The Emperor Theodosius 1m. nominated the Comes Can-
didian as his representative at the third CEcumenical Council,
held at Ephesus in 431. In a letter addressed to the as-
sembled fathers, the Emperor himself clearly determined the
1 Baller. t. i. p. 1089. 2 Hard. ii. 634. 3 Hard. ii, 58.
4 Hard, ii. 467, 366. > Euseb. Vita Const. lib. iv. c. 24.
© Hard. ii. 810 ss.
Cc
94 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
situation of Candidian towards the Council. He says: “1
have sent Candidian to your Synod as Comes sacrorwm domvestt-
corum; but he is to take no part in discussions on doctrine,
since it is not allowable to any one, unless enrolled among
the most holy bishops, to intermeddle in ecclesiastical dis-
cussions” (ἀθέμιτον yap, τὸν μὴ TOD καταλέγου τῶν ἁγιωτάτων
ἐπισκόπων τυγχάνοντα τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς σκέμμασιν ...
ἐπιμίγνυσθαὼ.
The Emperor then positively indicates what were to be the
duties of Candidian: namely, that he was to send away the
laity and the monks, if they repaired in too great numbers
to Ephesus; he was to provide for the tranquillity of the
city and the safety of the Synod; he was to take care that
differences of opinion that might arise between the members
of the Synod should not degenerate into passionate contro-
versies, but that each might express his opinion without fear
or hindrance, in order that, whether after quiet or noisy dis-
cussions upon each point, the bishops might arrive at a unani-
mous decision. Finally, he was to prevent any one from
leaving the Synod without cause, and also to see that no other
theological discussion should be entered into than that which
had occasioned the assembling of the Synod, or that no private
business should be brought up or discussed.
Pope Celestine 1. on his side had appointed the two bishops
Arcadius and Projectus, together with the priest Philippus, as
his legates, and had instructed them to act according to the
advice of Cyril, and to maintain the prerogatives of the
Apostolic See? The Pope had before nominated Cyril as his
representative in the Nestorian matter, and in his letter of
10th of August 430° he invested him with full apostolic
power. It is known that from the beginning Candidian
showed himself very partial to the friends of Nestorius, and
tried to postpone the opening of the Council. When, how-
ever, Cyril held the first sitting on the 24th June 431, the
Count was not present, and so his name does not appear in the
minutes. On the contrary, at the head of the list of the bishops
present is found the name of Cyril, with this significant ob-
servation, “ that he took the place of Celestine, the. most holy
1 Hard. i. 1346 sq. 2 Hard. i, 1347, 14738. 3 Hard. i. 1829,
*° INTRODUCTION, Ὁ
Archbishop of Rome.”? Cyril also directed the order of ‘the
business, either in person, as when he explained the chief
object of the deliberations, or else through Peter, one of his
priests, whom he made primicerius notariorum? Cyril was
also the first to sign the acts of the first session, and the sen-
tence of deposition pronounced against Nestorius!
In consequence of this deposition, Count Candidian be-
came the open opponent of the Synod, and the protector of
the party of Antioch, who held an unlawful council of their
own under John of Antioch. Cyril notwithstanding fixed the
10th July 431 for the second session, and he presided ; and
the minutes mention him again as the representative of Rome.®
The other papal legates, who had not arrived in time for the
first, were present at this second session ; and they shared the
presidency with Cyril, who continued to be called in the
accounts the representative of the Pope.® Cyril was the first
to sign; after him came the legate Arcadius: then Juvenal of
Jerusalem; next, the second legate Projectus; then came
Flavian bishop of Philippi; and after him the third legate, the
priest Philip.’ All the ancient documents are unanimous in
affirming that Cyril presided over the Council in the name of
Pope Celestine. Evagrius® says the same; so Pope Vigilius
in the profession of faith which he signed ;* and Mansuetus
Bishop of Milan, in his letter to the Emperor Constantine
Pogonatus. In other documents Pope Celestine and Cyril
are indiscriminately called presidents of the third C2cumenical
Council; the acts of the fourth" assert this several times, as
well as the Emperor Marcian,” and in the fifth century the
Armenian bishops in their letter to the Emperor Leo.”
7. When we pass on to the second (icumenical Council, it
is perfectly well known and allowed that it was not presided
over either by the Pope Damasus or his legate ; for, as has been
already said, this Council was not at first considered cecumeni-
eal, but only a general council of the Eastern Church, The
1 Hard. i. 1353, 2 Hard. i. 1422, 3 Hard. i. 1855, 1419,
* Hard. i, 1423, 5 Hard. i. 1466. 6 Hard. i, 1486, 1510.
7 Hard. i. 1527, 8 Hist. Eccl. i. 4. ~ © Hard. iii, 10.
10 Hard. iii. 1052... 11 Hard. i. 402, 451, 12 Hard. ii. 671.
23 Hard, ii. 742,
36 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
first sessions were presided over by Meletius Archbishop of
Antioch, who was the chief of all the bishops present, as the
Archbishop of Alexandria had not arrived at the beginning.
After the death of Meletius, which happened soon after the
opening of the Council, it was not the Archbishop of Alex-
andria, but the Archbishop of Constantinople, Gregory of
Nazianzus, who was the president, and after his resignation
his successor Nectarius. This took place through the deci-
sion of the Council, which in its third session had assigned to
the Bishop of new Rome—that is, Constantinople—the prece-
dency immediately after the Bishop of old Rome.
8. The solution of the question respecting the presidency
of the first CEcumenical Council is not without difficulty ; and
the greatest acumen hes been displayed, and the most venture-
some conjectures have been made, in order to prove that in the
first Council, at any rate, the Pope was not the president.
They have endeavoured to prove that the presidency belonged
to the Emperor, who in a solemn discourse opened the series
of the principal sessions, and took part in them, seated in the
place of honour. But Eusebius, who was an eye-witness of the
Council, and pays the greatest possible respect to the Emperor,
says most explicitly: “ After that (meaning after the opening
discourse by the Emperor) the Emperor made way for the
presidents of the Synod” (παρεδίδου τὸν λόγον τοῖς τῆς
συνόδου προέδροις) These words prove that Constantine
was simply the honorary president, as the Emperor Marcian
was subsequently in the sixth session of the Council of
Chalcedon ;? and, as a matter of course, he left to the eccle-
siastical presidents the conducting of the theological discus-
sions. In addition to the testimony of the eye-witness
Eusebius, we have to the same effect the following documents:
—(a.) The acts of the Council of Nicza, as far as they exist,
contain the signatures of the bishops, but not that of the
Emperor. And if that is true which the Emperor Basil the
Macedonian said at the eighth C&cumenical Council, that
“Constantine the Great had signed at Nicsea after all the
ὁ Euseb. Vita Const. 1. iii. c. 18. 2 See above, p. 32.
3 Hard. i. 311; Mansi, Collect. Concil. ii. 692 sqq. We shall give further
details upon this subject in the history of the Council of Niceu.
INTRODUCTION, 37
bishops,” this proves conclusively that Constantine did not
consider himself as the president proper of the Council.
(b.) Besides, the Emperor was not present in person at the
commencement of the Synod. It must, however, have had its
presidents before the Emperor arrived ; and a short sentence
in Eusebius alludes to these presidents: παρεδίδου... τοῖς
προέδροις ; that is, “ He left the management of the continua-
tion with those who had before presided.” (6) When several
complaints of the bishops against each other were presented to
him, the Emperor had them all burnt, and declared that it was
not becoming for him to give judgment upon priests.? (d.) We
will finally recall these words of the Emperor already quoted,
that he was the bishop of the outward circumstances of the
Church ; words which entirely agree with the position in the
Council of Niczea which we have assigned to him.
Who was, then, really the president of the Synod? Some
have tried to solve the question by considering as president
that bishop who was seated first at the right hand of the
Emperor, and saluted him with a discourse when he entered
the Synod. But here arise two observations: first, from the
Greek word mpoédpors it would appear that there were
several presidents ; and besides, it is not positively known who
addressed the discourse to the Emperor. According to the title
of the eleventh chapter of the third book of the Life of Con-
stantine by Eusebius, and according to Sozomen,* it was Euse-
bius of Ceesarea, the historian, himself; but as he was not a
bishop of any apostolic or patriarchal see, he could not possibly
have had the office of president. We cannot say either with
the Magdeburg Centuriators, that Eusebius was president be-
eause he was seated first on the right side; for the president
sat in the middle, and not at one side; and those patriarchs
who were present at the Council (we use this term although it
had not begun to be employed at this period), or their repre-
sentatives, were probably seated together in the middle, by the
side of the Emperor, whilst Eusebius was only the first of the
metropolitans seated on the right side. It is different with
1 Hard. v. 921-923, 1106. See above.
2Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 71.
8 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 11. 4 Hist. Eccl. i. 19.
38 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
Eustathius Archbishop of Antioch, who, according to Theo-
doret,’ pronounced the speech in question which was addressed
to the Emperor. He was one of the great patriarchs; and one
of his successors, John Archbishop of Antioch, in a letter to
Proclus, calls him the “ first of the Nicene Fathers.” The
Chronicle of Nicephorus expresses itself in the same way
about him.” He cannot, however, be considered as the only
president of the Council of Nica; for we must regard the
expression of Eusebius, which is in the plural (τοῖς mpoédpors) ;
and, besides, it must not be forgotten that the Patriarch of
Alexandria ranked higher than the Patriarch of Antioch. To
which, thirdly,.it must be added, that the Nicene Council
itself, in its letter to the Church of Alexandria,” says: “ Your
bishop will give you fuller explanation of the synodical
decrees ; for he has been a leader (κύριος) and participator
(κουνων ὅς) in all that has been done.” These words seem to
give a reason for the theory of Schréckh* and others, that
Alexander and Eustathius were both presidents, and that
they are intended by Eusebius when he speaks of the
πρόεδροι" But apart from the fact that the word κύριος
is here used only as an expression of politeness, and de-
signates perhaps merely a very influential member of the
Synod, and not the president, there is this against the theory
of Schrockh, which is expressly asserted by Gelasius of
Cyzicus, who wrote a history of the Council of Nica in
the fifth century: “ And Hosius was the representative of
the Bishop of Rome; and he was present at the Council of
Nicsea, with the two Roman priests Vitus and Vincentius.”®
The importance of this testimony has been recognised by all ;
therefore every means has been tried to undermine it. Gela-
518, it is said, writes these words in the middle of a long
passage which he borrowed from Eusebius; and he represents
the matter as if he had taken these words also from the
1 Hist. Eccl. 1.7.
* Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir ἃ Uhist. eccl. vi. 272 ὃ, Brux. 1732.
3 Cf. Socrat. i. 9. *Schréckh, Kirchengeschichte, ΤῊ]. v. 5. 835.
° The Bishops of Jerusalem and Constantinople cannot be referred to here ;
for it was only subsequently that they were raised to the dignity of patriarchs.
5 Gelasius, Volumen actorum Concil. Nic. ii. 5; Mansi, ii. 806; Hard. i,
$75.
INTRODUCTION. 39
same historian. Now they are not to be found in Eusebius ;
therefore they have no historical value. But it must be
remarked, that Gelasius does not copy servilely from Euse-
bius ; but in different places he gives details which are not
in that author, and which he had learned from other sources.
Thus, after the passage concerning Hosius, he inserts some
additional information about the Bishop of Byzantium. A
little further on in the same chapter, he changes the number
of two hundred and fifty bishops, given by Eusebius, into
“three hundred. and more,” and that without giving the
least indication that he is repeating literally the words of
Eusebius. We are therefore brought to believe that Gelasius
has acted in the same way as to Hosius in this passage,
by introducing the information derived from another source
into the passage taken from Eusebius, and not at all from
having misunderstood Eusebius.
When Baronius and several other Catholic ecclesiastical his-
torians assign to the papal legate Hosius the honour of the
presidency, they are supported by several authorities for this
opinion besides Gelasius. Thus, S$. Athanasius, in his Apo-
logia de fuga, thus expresses himself about Hosius: ποίας
yap ov καθηγήσατο ; that is to say, “ Of what synod was
he not president ?” Theodoret speaks just in the same way :”
Ποίας yap οὐχ ἡγήσατο συνόδου. Socrates, in giving
the list of the principal members of the Council of Nicza,
writes it in the following order: “ Hosius, Bishop of Cor-
dova; Vitus and Vincentius, priests of Rome; Alexander,
Bishop of Alexandria; Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch ; Ma-
carius, Bishop of Jerusalem.” We see that he follows the
order of rank: he would therefore never have placed the
Spanish bishop, Hosius, before the great patriarchs of the
East, if he had not been the representative of the Pope.*
1B. 5, Athanasii Opera, ed. Patav. 1777, i. 256.
2 Hist. Eccl. ii. 15. ot i το
4 Τῦ may be objected that Socrates also mentions, after Macarius Bishop of
Jerusalem, Arpocration Bishop of Cynopolis (in Egypt), although this episco-
pal see had no such high rank. But, as has been remarked by the Ballerini,
Socrates simply intended to give a list of the patriarchs, or their representa-
tives, according to rank. As for the other bishops, he contented himself with
mentioning one only as antesignanus reliqui, and he took the first name in
40 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
An examination of the signatures of the Council of Nicea
leads us again to the same conclusion. It is true that there
are many variations to be found in these signatures, if several
manuscripts are consulted, and that these manuscripts are
often faulty and defective, as Tillemont* has conclusively
shown ; but in spite of these defects, it is a very significant
fact, that in every copy, without one exception, Hosius and
the two Roman priests sign the first, and after them Alexan-
der Patriarch of Alexandria signs. On this subject the two
lists of signatures given by Mansi” may be consulted, as well
as the two others given by Gelasius: in these latter Hosius
expressly signs in the name of the Church of Rome, of the
Churches of Italy, of Spain, and of the West; the two Roman
priests appear only as his attendants. In Mansi’s two lists,
it is true, nothing indicates that Hosius acted in the Pope’s
name, whilst we are informed that the two Roman priests
did so. But this is not so surprising as it might at first
sight appear, for these Roman priests had no right to sign
for themselves: it was therefore necessary for them to say in
whose name they did so; whilst it was not necessary for Hosius,
who as a bishop had a right of his own.
Schréckh’ says that Hosius had his distinguished posi-
tion on account of his great influence with the Emperor ; but
this reasoning is very feeble. The bishops did not sign
according as they were more or less in favour with Constan-
tine. If such order had been followed, Eusebius of Cesarea
would have been among the first. It is highly important to
remark the order in which the signatures of the Council were
given. The study of the lists proves that they followed the
order of provinces: the metropolitan signed first, and after
his list after the Bishop of Alexandria. Cf. Baller. de Antig. Collect., etc., in
Gallandi, de vetustis Canonum Collectionibus, i. 256.
1/.c. p. 355.
* ii. 692, 697. See also Mansi, ii. 882, 927. What has been said above
also shows that Socrates consulted a similar list, in which Hosius and the
Roman priests were the first to sign. These lists, especially the larger ones,
which are generally translated into Latin (Mansi, ii. 882 sq.), contain, it is
true, several inaccuracies in detail, but they are most certainly authentic op
the whole. Cf. Baller. l.c. p. 254 sq.
* Schréckh, Kirchengesch. Thl. v. S. 336.
INTRODUCTION, 41
him the suffragans; the metropolitan of another province
followed, and then his suffragan bishops, etc. The enumera-
tion of the provinces themselves was in no particular order:
thus the province of Alexandria came first, then the Thebiid
and Libya, then Palestine and Pheenicia; not till after that
the province of Antioch, etc. At the head of each group of
signatures was always written the name of the ecclesiastical
province to which they belonged; and this is omitted only
in the case of Hosius and the two Roman priests. They
signed first, and without naming a diocese. It will perhaps
be objected, that as the Synod was chiefly composed of Greek
bishops, they allowed the Westerns to sign first out of con-
sideration for them; but this supposition is inadmissible, for
at the end of the lists of the signatures of the Council are
found the names of the representatives of two ecclesiastical
provinces of the Latin Church. Since Gaul and Africa are
placed at the end, they would certainly have been united to.
the province of Spain, if Hosius had represented that pro-
vince only, and had not attended in a higher capacity. To-
gether with the two Roman priests, he represented no particular
church, but was the president of the whole Synod: therefore
the name of no province was added to his signature,—a fresh
proof that we must recognise in him and his two colleagues
the πρόεδρον spoken of by Eusebius. The analogy of the
other cecumenical councils also brings us to the same conclu-
sion ; particularly that of the Council of Ephesus, in which
Cyril of Alexandria, an otherwise distinguished bishop, who
held the office of papal legate, like Hosius at Nicza, signed
first, before all the other legates who came from Italy.
It would be superfluous, in the consideration of the ques-
tion which is now occupying us, to speak of the cecumenical
councils held subsequently to these eight first, since no one
doubts that these more recent councils were presided over
either by the Pope or his legates. We will therefore conclude
the discussicn of this point with the remark, that if in some
national councils the Emperor or Kings were presidents,! it was
either an honorary presidency only, or else they were mixed
* Thus Charles the Great at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794, and King Genulf
at that of Becanceld in England in 799. Cf. Hard. iv. 882 E, 925 Ο, )
42 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
councils assembled for State business as well as for that of
the Church.
The Robber-Synod of Ephesus, which was held in 449,
departed from the rule of all the cecumenical councils in the
matter of the presidency; and it is well to mention this
Synod, because at first it was regarded as an cecumenical
council. We have before said that the presidency of it was
refused to the Pope’s legates; and by order of the Emperor
Theodosius 11, who had been deceived, it was bestowed upon
Dioscurus of Alexandria.’ But the sensation produced by
this unusual measure, and the reasons given at Chalcedon by
the papal legates for declaring this Synod of Ephesus to be
invalid, indisputably prove that we may here apply the well-
known axiom, exceptio firmat requlam.
SEC. 6. Confirmation of the Decrees of the Councils.
The decrees of the ancient cecumenical councils were con-
firmed by the Emperors and by the Popes; those of the later
councils by the Popes alone. On the subject of the confir-
mation of the Emperors we have the following facts :—
1. Constantine the Great solemnly confirmed the Nicene
Creed immediately after it had been drawn up by the Council,
and he threatened such as would not subscribe it with exile.’
At the conclusion of the Synod he raised all the decrees of
the assembly to the position of laws of the empire; declared
them to be divinely inspired ; and in several edicts still par-
tially extant, he required that they should be most. faithfully
observed by all his subjects.
2. The second GEcumenical Council expressly asked for the
confirmation of the Emperor Theodosius the Great,* and he
responded to the wishes of the assembly by an edict dated the
30th July 581.
3. The case of the third Gicumenical Council, which was
held at Ephesus, was peculiar. The Emperor Theodosius 11.
1 Hard. ii. 80. * Rufin. Hist. Eccl. i. 5 ; Socrat. Hist. eel. i. 9.
5 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 17-19; Socrat. i. 9; Gelasii Volumen actorum
Concilit Nic. lib. ii. 6. 86; in Yigal. i. 445 sqq. ; Mansi, li, 919.
4 Hard. i. 807.
“5 Cod. Theodos. i..8; de Fide Cath. vi. 9. See also Valesius’ notes to
Socrates, v. 8. ’
_ INTRODUCTION. ee 43
had first been on the herétical ‘side, but he was brought to
acknowledge by degrees that the orthodox part of the bishops
assembled at Ephesus formed the true Synod." However, he
did not in a general way give his confirmation to the decrees
of the Council, because he would not approve of the deposition
and exclusion pronounced by the Council against the bishops
of the party of Antioch.? Subsequently, however, when Cyril
and John of Antioch were reconciled, and when the party of
Antioch itself had acknowledged the Council of Ephesus,
the Emperor sanctioned this reconciliation by a special decree,
threatened all who should disturb the peace; and by exiling
Nestorius, and by commanding all the Nestorian writings to
be burnt, he confirmed the principal decision given by the
Council of Ephesus.°
4, The Emperor Marcian consented to the doctrinal de-
erees of the fourth CGicumenical Council, held at Chalcedon,
by publishing four edicts on the 7th February, 13th March,
6th and 28th July 452.*
5. The close relations existing between the fifth Gicumenical
Council and the Emperor Justinian are well known. This
Council merely carried out and sanctioned what the Emperor
had before thought necessary and decided; and it bowed so
obsequiously to his wishes, that Pope Vigilius would have
nothing to do with it. The Emperor Justinian sanctioned
the decrees pronounced by the Council, by sending an official
to the seventh session, and he afterwards used every endeavour
to obtain the approbation of Pope Vigilius for this Council.
6. The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus confirmed the de-
erees of the sixth Council, first by signing them? (wltimo loco,
as we have seen); but he sanctioned them also by a very
long edict which Hardouin has preserved.®
7. In the last session of the seventh Gicumenical Council,
the Empress Irene, with her son, signed the decrees made in the
preceding sessions, and thus gave them the imperial sanction.’
It is not known whether she afterwards promulgated an
especial decree to the same effect.
‘1 Mansi, v. 255, 659 ; Hard. i. 1667. 2 Mansi, iv. 1465.
3 Mansi, v. 255, 413, 920. 4 Hard. ii. 659, 662, 675 8.
5 Hard. iii. 1435. 6 Hard. 111, 1446, 1688. 7 Hard. ii, 488-486,
ἥν
44 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
8. The Emperor Basil the Macedonian and his sons signed
the acts of the eighth (Ecumenical Council. His signature
followed that of the patriarchs, and preceded that of the
other bishops. In 870 he also published an especial edict,
making known his approval of the decrees of the Council.?
The papal confirmation of all these eight first cecumenical
councils is not so clear and distinct.
1. The signatures of the Pope’s legates, Hosius, Vitus, and
Vincentius, subscribed to the acts of the Council before the
other bishops, must be regarded as a sanction from the See of
Rome to the decrees of Niczea. Five documents, dating from
the fifth century, mention, besides, a solemn approval of the
acts of the Council of Nica, given by Pope Sylvester and a
Roman synod of 275 bishops. It is granted that these docu-
ments are not authentic, as we shall show in the history of
the Council of Nica; but we nevertheless consider it very
probable that the Council of Nicea was recognised and ap-
proved by an especial act of Pope Sylvester, and not merely
by the signature of his legates, for the following reasons :—
It is undeniable, as we shall presently see, that
a. The fourth Gicumenical Council looked upon the papal
confirmation as absolutely necessary for ensuring the validity
of the decrees of the Council; and there is no good ground for
maintaining that this was a new principle, and one which was
not known and recognised at the time of the Nicene Council.
8. Again, in 485, a synod, composed of above forty bishops
from different parts of Italy, was quite unanimous in assert-
ing, in opposition to the Greeks, that the three hundred and
eighteen bishops of Nicwa had their decisions confirmed by
the authority of the holy Roman Church (confirmationem rerum
atque auctoritatem sancte Romane Ecclesice detulerunt).®
y. Pope Julius 1. in the same way declared, a few years
after the close of the Council of Nicea, that ecclesiastical
decrees (the decisions of synods*) ought not to be published
without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, and that this is
a rule and a law of the Church!
6. Dionysius the Less also maintained that the decisions of
1 See above, sec. 5. 2 Hard. v. 935,
% Hard. ii. 856. 4 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. ii. 17.
INTRODUCTION. 45
the Council of Nica were sent to Rome for approval ;? and
it is not improbable that it was the general opinion upon this
point which contributed to produce those spurious documents
which we possess.
2. When the Pope and the Western bishops heard the de-
crees of the Council of Constantinople, held in 381, subse-
sequently accepted as the second Cicumenical Council, they
expressed in an Italian synod their disapproval of some of
the steps taken, although they had not then received the
acts of the Council.? Soon after they had received the acts,
Pope Damasus gave his sanction to the Council. This is the
account given by Photius.® This approval, however, must
have related only to the Creed of Constantinople; for the
canons of this Council were rejected by Pope Leo the Great,
and subsequently, towards the year 600, still more explicitly
by Pope Gregory the Great.* That the Creed of Constanti-
nople had, however, the approbation of the Apostolic See, is
shown by the fact that, in the fourth General Council held at
Chalcedon, the papal legates did not raise the least opposition
when this creed was quoted as an authority, whilst they pro-
tested most strongly when the canons of Constantinople were
appealed to. It was, in fact, on account of the creed having
been approved of by the Holy See, that afterwards, in the
sixth century, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius 11, and Gregory the
Great, formally declared that this Council was cecumenical,
although Gregory at the same time refused to acknowledge
the canons it had promulgated.
ὃ. The third Gicumenical Council was held in the time of
Pope Celestine, and its decisions were signed by his legates,
S. Cyril, Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Priest
Philip.” Besides this sanction, in the following year Ce-
lestine’s successor, Pope Sixtus IIL, sanctioned this Council of
Ephesus in a more solemn manner, in several circular and
private letters, some of which have reached us.°
1 Coustant. Epistole Pontif. Pref. pp. lxxxii. lxxix. ; Hard. i. 311.
2 Hard. i. 845. 3 De Synodis, in Mansi, iii. 595..
* Gregor. Opp. tom. ii. lib. 1; Hpist. 25, p. 515; Leonis 1. Hpist. 106 (80),
ad Anatol.c.2. Seeafterwards, in the history of the second Ecumenical Council.
> Hard. i. 1527,
6 Mansi, v. 374 sq. ; and Coustant. Zpist. Pontif. 1231 sg.
46 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
4. The decisions of the fourth Gicumenical Council, held at
Chalcedon, were not only signed by the papal legates present
at the Council, except the canons, and thus obtained a first
sanction from the Apostolic See; but the Council, at the con-
clusion of its sessions, sent all the acts of the Synod to the
Pope, in order to obtain assent, approval, and confirmation for
them, as is expressly set forth in the letter written by the
Synod to the Pope with these acts. We there read: πᾶσαν
ὑμῖν τῶν πεπραγμένων τὴν δύναμιν ἐγνωρίσαμιν εἰς σύστασιν
ἡμετέραν καὶ τῶν Tap ἡμῶν πεπραγμένων βεβαίωσιν τε καὶ
συγκατάθεσιν [We have made known to you the whole force
of the things which have been done, in proof of our efforts, and
in order to the approval and confirmation by you of what we
have done]. The Emperor Marcian, like the Council, requested
the Pope to sanction the decrees made at Constantinople in a
special epistle, which he said would then be read in all the
churches, that every one might know that the Pope approved
of the Synod.” Finally, the Archbishop of Constantinople,
Anatolius, expressed himself in a similar way to the Pope. He
says: “The whole force and confirmation of the acts has been
reserved for the authority of your Holiness” (Gestorwm vis omiis
et confirmatio auctoritati Vestree Beatitudinis fucrit reservata).?
However, Pope Leo confirmed only those articles of the
Council of Chalcedon which concerned the faith: he ex-
pressly rejected the twenty-eighth canon, which granted in- ἢ
admissible rights to the Bishop of Constantinople, without
taking into account the sixth canon of Nicza* Leo pro-
nounced the same judgment in several letters addressed either
to the Emperor or to the Empress Pulcheria;’ and he charged
his nuncio at Constantinople, Julian Bishep of Cos, to an-
nounce to the Emperor that the sanction of the Holy See to
the Council af Chalcedon should be sent to ase the bishops
of the empire.°
5. We have already seen’ that it was after a protracted
1 Ep. 89 of the collection of 8. Leo’s letters in the Ballerini edition, i.
1099. P. 292, ed. Lugd. 1770.
* Ep. 110 in. the collection of S. Leo’s letters, 1.6. 1182 sq.
3 Ep. 132 in letters of S. Leo, i. 263 sq. is Wa
4 Ep. 114 in Ballerini, i. 1193 sq.
® Ep. 115, 116. Peo Ἢ ΝΣ ΐ Σ ΤΟΡ»14.
INTRODUCTION. 47
refusal that Pope Vigilius finally sanctioned the decrees of
the fifth CEcumenical Council. We have still two documents
which refer to this question,—a decree sent to S. Eutychius
Bishop of Constantinople, and the constitutwm of February
23; 554)
6. The decisions of the sixth Cicumenical Council were
signed and accepted not only by the Pope’s legates ; but, like the
Council of Chalcedon, this Synod also desired a special sanction
from the Pope, and asked for it in a letter written by the
Synod to the Pope, whom they agen Caput Ecclesie, and his
see prima sedes Ecclesice wcwmenicw.” The successor of Pope
Agatho, Leo 11, gave this sanction in letters addressed to the
Emperor and to the bishops of Spain,’ which still exist. It
is true that Baronius* has endeavoured to prove these letters
to be spurious, because they also mention the anathema pro-
nounced against Pope Honorius ; but their authenticity can-
not be doubted on good grounds, and it has been successfully
maintained by others, particularly by Pagi, Dupin, Dom
Ceillier, Bower? and Natalis Alexander.’
7. As the Pope had co-operated in the convocation of the
seventh CEcumenical Council, which was presided over by his
legates, so it was expressly sanctioned by Hadrian 1, as he
says himself in a letter to Charles the Great. His words are:
Et ideo ipsam suscepimus synodum.’ However, the Pope would
not immediately send his sanction of the Council to the Em-
peror of Constantinople, who had asked it of him, because the
Emperor did not accede to two demands of the See of Rome
with respect to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchal See, and the
restitution of the property of the Church.® Subsequently
Pope Hadrian confirmed the sanction which he gave to the
second Council of Nicea, by having its acts translated into
Latin, sending them to the Western bishops, and defending
1 Hard. iii. 213 sq., 218 sqq. 2 Hard. iii. 1632 E.
3 Hard. iii. 1469 sqq., 1729 sqq. 4 Ad ann. 683, n. 13 sqq.
5 Pagi, Crit. in Annal. Baron. ad ann. 683, n. 7; Dupin, Nouvelle Biblioth.,
ete., t. vi. p. 67, ed. Mons 1692; Remi Ceillier, Hist. des auteurs sacrés ;
Rower, Hist. of the Popes, vol. iv. g 108.
SN. Alex. Hist. Eccl, sec. 7, t. 5, p. 515, ed. 1778.
7 Hard. iv. 819.
8 Hard. iv. 819.
48 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
them against the attacks of the French bishops in the
“ Caroline Books.” *
8. Finally, the eighth Gicumenical Council had not merely
that kind of sanction which is involved in the signatures of
the Pope’s legates at the end of its acts: it desired a more
solemn and express approbation,’ and Hadrian 11. yielded to
this desire; and in his letter addressed to the Emperor,’ he
sanctioned the dogmatic part of the decisions of the Synod,
but noted his dissatisfaction with respect to other points. The
fact that the Pope confirmed this Council is, moreover, made
clear by his subsequently having a Latin translation of its
acts made by the learned abbot and librarian Anastasius, and
by the fact that Anastasius without hesitation calls it an
(icumenical Council in the preface addressed to the Pope * at
the commencement of his translation.
It would be superfluous to show that the Popes always
confirmed the cecumenical councils of later times; for it is
universally known that the influence of the Popes in all later
Western councils has been greater, and that of the Emperor
less, than in the first eight councils. Popes have often pre-
sided in person over these more recent councils, and then
they could give their approbation orally. So it was in the
ninth, the tenth, and the eleventh Ccumenical Councils :° it
was also the case in all the subsequent ones, except those of
Basle and Trent; but the latter asked for and obtained an
express confirmation from the Pope.® Even in the middle
ages several distinguished canonists demonstrated with much
perspicuity that this papal approbation was necessary for the
validity of cecumenical councils ;‘ and we shall see the rea-
son for this statement: for the discussion of the celebrated
question, “Is the Pope superior or inferior to an cecumenical
council?” necessarily leads us to study more closely the
relations which obtain between the Pope and the cecumenical
council.
1 Hard. iv. 773-820. 2 Hard. v. 933 sqq., especially 9385 A.
3 Hard. v. 938. 4 Hard. v. 749.
5 Hard. vi. P. ii. 1110, 1218, 1678.
* Sess. 25 in fin. ; ef. Hard. x. 192, 198.
τ Hard. ix. 1229, 1273, 1274.
INTRODUCTION. 49
Sec. 7. Relation of the Pope to the Geumenical Council.
As every one knows, the Councils of Constance and Basle
asserted the superiority of the cecumenical council to the
Holy See ;* and the French theologians placed this proposi-
tion among the quatuor \propositiones Clert Gallicani?—the so-
called Gallican Liberties. Other theologians have affirmed
the contrary, saying that the Pope is superior to an cecume-
nical council: for example, Roncaglia, in his learned reply to
Natalis Alexander’s dissertation ;* also, before Roncaglia, the
pros and cons had been disputed at great length and with
much animation. The Ultramontanes especially relied upon
the fact that, at the fifth Council of Lateran,* Pope Leo de-
clared, without the least opposition in the Synod, that the
authority of the Pope extended swper omnia concilia® The
Gallicans could only reply to this as follows: (a.) The Pops,
it is true, had a document read in the Council which con-
tained this sentence, and it passed without opposition ; but
the Council did not give any formal decision: it did not make
a solemn decree of this proposition. (0.) The Pope only
used this sentence argumentando, and not definiendo, in order
to use it as a proof, but without giving it as a general pro-
position; and (c.) it is not certain that the fifth Lateran
Council should be considered cecumenical.® Many maintain
that Pope Martin v. sanctioned the decree of the Council of
Constance establishing the superiority of the cecumenical
council to the Pope, and Eugene Iv. also sanctioned a similar
decree from the Council of Basle.” In point of fact, however,
these two Popes sanctioned only a part of the decrees of the
Councils of Basle and Constance. As for those of Basle,
1 Hard. viii. 252, 258, 1818, 1348.
2 Cf. upon this point the dissertation by El. Dupin, ‘‘ de Concilii generalis
supra Romanum pontificem auctoritate,” in his book de Antiqua Ecclesie Dis-
ciplina ; and the long dissertation (Diss. iv. ad sec. xv.) by Natalis Alexander
in his Historia Eccl. ix. 286-339, 446-452, ed. Venet. 1778.
*It has also been printed in the ninth vol. of N. Alexander, pp. 339-363.
Cf. also p. 470 sq.
4 Sess. xi. 5 Hard. l.c. ix. 1828.
6 See El. Dupin, 1.6. and Natalis Alexander, ix. 439. '
7 Nat. Alexander, ix. 289, 425 sq.
D
50 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Eugene only sanctioned those which treated of three points,
viz. the extinction of heresy, the pacification of Christendom,
and the general reform of the Church in its head and in its
members.’ Martin v.* sanctioned only those decrees of the
Council of Constance which had been made in materiis fidet
conciliariter et non aliter, nec alio modo.2 Now the decrees in
question, respecting the superiority of the general council to
the Pope, have nothing to do with the faith, and were given
at Constance rather twmultuariter than conciliariter. We may
add that the Council of Constance did not intend to utter a
universal truth, but only, with reference to the case before it,
asserted a superiority over the Pope, and particularly over
the three Popes who were then contending for sovereign
power. It was more concerned to solve an entirely peculiar
question, than to propound a general theory.’ Finally, it
must not be forgotten that, on the 4th September 1439, Pope
Eugene Iv. and the Synod of Florence, in an especial con-
stitution, Moses, solemnly rejected the proposition that the
council is superior to the Pope,—a proposition which had just
been renewed in the thirty-third session of the Council of
Basle, and had been there made a dogma.*
In confining themselves to this question, Is the Pope
superior or inferior to a general council? the Gallicans and
the Ultramontanes® did not understand that they were
keeping on the surface of a very deep question, that of the
position of the Holy See in the economy of the Catholic
Church. A much clearer and deeper insight into the ques-
tion has more recently been shown; and the real question
may be summed up in the following propositions :—An cecu-
menical council represents the whole Church: there must
therefore be the same relation between the Pope and the
1 Hard. viii. 1172. * See Preface.
2 Hard. viii. 899 E, 902 A. Cf. Animadversiones, in Nat, Alex. ix. 361 sq.,
464 sq.
3 Cf. Animad. in Nat. Alex. ix. 357 sq.
4 Hard. ix. 1004; and Raynald, ad an. 1439, ἢ. 29. Cf. Nat. Alex. ix. 488 8,
466 sq. ; Bellarmin. de Conciliis, lib. ii. c. 13-19, in the ed. of his Disput. pub-
lished at Ingolstadt, 1, 1204 sqq.
5 Curialis's is the word used by Hefele, but that in the text is more common
and familiar.—Ep.
INTRODUCTION. ~~ §1°
council as exists between the Pope and the Church. Now,
is the Pope above or below the Church? Neither the one
nor the other. The Pope is in the Church; he necessarily
belongs to it; he is its head and its centre. The Church,
like the human body, is an organized whole ; and just as the
head is not superior or inferior to’ the body, but forms ἃ.
part of it, and is the principal part of it, so the Pope, who is
the head of the Church, is not superior or inferior to it: he
as therefore neither above nor below the general council. The
human organism is no longer a true body, but a lifeless
trunk, when the head is cut off; so an assembly of bishops
is no longer an cecumenical council when it is separated
from the Pope. It is therefore a false statement of the
question, to ask whether the Pope is above or below the
general council’ On the other side, we may rightly ask,
Has an cecumenical council the right to depose the Pope ?
According to the Synods of Constance and Basle and the Gal-
licans, the Pope may be deposed for two principal reasons :
(1) ob mores ; (2) ob fidem, that is to say, ob heresim? But,
in reality, heresy alone can constitute a reason for deposition 3
for an heretical Pope has ceased to be a member of the Church:
he therefore can be its president no longer. But a Pope who
is guilty ob mores, a sinful Pope, still belongs to the visible
Church: he must be considered as the sinful and unrighteous
head of a constitutional kingdom, who must be made as harm-
less as possible, but not deposed* If the question arises of
several pretenders to the pontifical throne, and it is impossible
to distinguish which is in the right, Bellarmin says® that in
this case it is the part of the council to examine the claims
of the pretenders, and to depose those who cannot justify
their claims. This is what was done by the Council of Con-
stance. In proceeding to this deposition, however, the Council
1 See Roskovanny, De Primatu, etc., p. 143 sq. ; Walter, Kirchenrecht, sec.
158, 11th ed. S. 296 ff.
i.e. for immorality or heresy.
* Cf. Bellarmin. de Rom. Pontif. lib. ii. c. 80 E ; de Conciliis, lib. ii. 6. 19,
in the Ingolstadt ed. i. 820, 1219 sq.
*Cf. Walter, Kirchenrecht; Bellarmin. De disput. vol. ii. ; de Conciliis,
lib. ii. e. 19.
* De Disput. vol. ii. lib. ii. c. 19.
52 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
has not the authority of an cecumenical council: it cannot
have that authority until the legitimate Pope enters into rela-
tion with it, and confirms it. The question is evidently only
of the deposition of a pretender, who has not sufficient claim,
and not that of a Pope legitimately elected. The Council
of Constance would not have had any right to depose even
John xxi. if (a) the validity of this Pope’s election had not
been doubtful, (Ὁ) and if he had not been suspected of heresy.
Besides, he abdicated, thus ratifying the deposition which had
been pronounced."
We see from these considerations, of what value the sanc-
tion of the Pope is to the decrees of a council. Until the
Pope has sanctioned these decrees, the assembly of bishops
which formed them cannot pretend to the authority belonging
to an cecumenical council, however great a number of bishops
may compose it; for there cannot be an cecumenical council
without union with the Pope.
Sec. 8.—Jnfallibility of Bewmenical Councils.
This sanction of the Pope is also necessary for ensuring
infallibility to the decisions of the council. According to
Catholic doctrine, this prerogative can be claimed only for the
decisions of ecumenical councils, and only for their decisions
in rebus fidei et morwm, not for purely disciplinary decrees.
This doctrine of the Catholic Church upon the infallibility of
cecumenical councils in matters of faith and morality, pro-
ceeds from the conviction, drawn from Holy Scripture, that
the Holy Spirit guides the Church of God (consequently also
the Church assembled in an cecumenical council), and that Hs
keeps it from all error ;? that Jesus Christ will be with His
own until the end of the world ;* that the gates of hell (there-
fore the powers of error) will never prevail against the Church.*
The apostles evinced their conviction that the Holy Spirit is
present in general councils, when they published their decrees
with this formula, Viswm est Spiritui sancto et nobis’ (it seemed
good to the Holy Ghost and to us), at the Synod held at
1 Mansi, Nota in Natal. Alex. ἴ.6. scholion ii. 286.
2 John xvi. 13, xiv. 26. 3 Matt. xxviii. 20.
4 Matt. xvi. 18. 5 Acts xv. 28.
INTRODUCTION. 53
Jerusalem. The Church, sharing this conviction of the
apostles, has always taught that the councils are infallible in
vebus fidet et morum, and has considered all those who did
not believe in this infallibility to be heretics, and separate
from the Church. Constantine the Great called the decrees
of the Synod of Nica a divine commandment (θείαν év-
τολήν) Athanasius, in his letter to the bishops of Africa,
exclaimed: “ What God hath spoken through the Council of
Nicwea endureth for ever.” §. Ambrose is so thoroughly con-
vinced of the infallibility of the general council, that he
writes : “ Sequor tractatum Niceeni concilit a quo me nec mors
nec gladius poterit separare”*® (1 follow the guidance of the
Nicene Council, from which neither death nor sword will be
able to separate me). Pope Leo the Great, speaking of his
explanation respecting the two natures in Jesus Christ, says
expressly that it has already been corroborated by the “ con-
sensu trretractabili” of the Council of Chalcedon ;* and in
another letter, “ non posse inter catholicos reputart, qui resis-
tunt Niceno vel Chaleedonensi concilio” * (that they cannot be
counted among Catholics who resist the Council of Nica or
Chalcedon). Pope Leo again says in this same letter, that
the decrees of Chalcedon were given “ wstruente Spiritw
saneto,’ and that they are rather divine than human decrees.®
Pellarmin® and other theologians quote a great number of
other texts, drawn from the works of the Fathers, which prove
that this belief in the infallibility of cecumenical councils has
always been part of the Church’s creed. We select from
them this of Gregory the Great: “ I venerate the four first
cecumenical councils equally with the four Gospels”” (sicué
quatuor Evangelia). Bellarmin® as well as Steph. Wiest® have
refuted every objection which can be brought against the infal-
dibility of cecumenical councils.
The same infallibility must be accorded to councils which
1 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 20, 2 Ep. 21.
_ 3 Ep. 65, ad Theodoret. 4 Ep. 78, ad Leon. August.
® Hard. ii. 702. 6 Disp. vol. ii. ; de Cone. lib. ii. 6. 8.
bib, i. 6. 24.
_ * Bellar. Disput. vol. ii. ; de Concil. lib. iii. c. 6-9.
Ὁ Demonstratio religionis Cath, iii. 542 sq.
54 HISTORY OF TIIE COUNCILS,
are not cecumenical, when their decrees have received the
sanction of the Pope, and been accepted by the whole Church.
The only formal difference, then, existing between these coun-
cils and those which are cecumenical is this, that all the
bishops of the Church were not invited to take part in them?
Sec. 9. Appeal from the Pope to an Eeumenical Council.
The question, whether one can appeal from the decision of a
Pope to that of an cecumenical council, is highly important, and
has often been ventilated. Pope Celestine 1, as early as the
fifth century, declared that such an appeal was inadmissible
It is true that, in the first centuries, questions were often con-
sidered by the councils which had before been decided by the
Pope; but, as Peter de Marca has shown, that was not an ap-
peal properly so called. He also shows that the Emperor
Frederick 11. was the first who formally appealed from the de-
cision of a Pope to that of a general council. Pope Martin v.,
and subsequently Pope Pius 11.,* were led again to prohibit
these appeals, because they recurred too often, and especially
on account of the exorbitant demands of the Council of Con-
stance? Julius 1. and Paul v. renewed these prohibitions in
the sixteenth century. In 1717 a great sensation was caused
by the appeal of many Jansenists to a general council against
the Bull Unigenitus of Pope Clement x1. But in his brief
Pastoralis officit the Pope threatened with excommunication
every one who promoted the appeal, and did not sign the Bull
Unigenitus ; and also compelled the abandonment of the
appeal, and the dispersion of the appealing party. Even the
Protestant historian Mosheim wrote against this appeal, and
plainly showed the contradiction there was between it and
the Catholic principle of the unity of the Church ;*° and
indeed it must be confessed, that to appeal from the Pope to
1 Bellarmin. J.c. lib. ii. 6. v.—x. 2 C. 16 and 17 ; Causa ix. q. 3.
3 De Marca, de Concord. sacerd. et imperii, lib. iv. c. 17.
4 Cf. the bull of Pius 11. dated Jan. 18, 1459.
* De Marca, de Concord. sacerd. et imperii, lib. iv. ο. 17; and Schréckh,
Kirchengesch. Bd. 32, S. 223 and 227.
® Mosheim, de Gallorum appellationibus ad concilium universe Ecclesia,
unttatem Ecclesie spectabilis tollentibus, in the first vol. of his Dissert. ad Hist.
Eccl. p. 577 sq.
INTRODUCTION. 55
# council, an authority usually very difficult to constitute and
to consult, is simply to cloak ecclesiastical insubordination by
a mere formality.’
Src. 10. Number of the Hewmenical Councils.
Bellarmin reckons eighteen cecumenical councils as univer-
sally acknowledged ;? but on the subject of the fifth Lateran
Council, he says that it was doubted by many: “Aw fuerit vere
generale ; ideo usque ad hane diem queestio superest, etiam inter
catholicos.”* Some historians have also raised doubts as to the
cecumenical character of the Council held at Vienne in 1311.
There are therefore only the following sixteen councils which
are recognised without any opposition as cecumenical :—
1. That of Nicea in 325.
2. The first of Constantinople in 381.
3. That of Ephesus in 431.
4, That of Chalcedon in 401.
5. The second of Constantinople in 553.
6. The third of Constantinople in 680.
7. The second of Nicza in 787.
8. ‘The fourth of Constantinople in 869.
9. The first Lateran in 1123.
10. The second Lateran in 1139.
11. The third Lateran in 1179.
12. The fourth Lateran in 1215.
13. The first of Lyons in 1245.
14. The second of Lyons in 1274.
15. That of Florence in 1439.
16. That of Trent, from 1545 to 1563.
The cecumenical character of the following synods is con-
tested :—
1. That of Sardica, about 343-344.
2, That in Trullo, or the Quinisext, in 692.
3 That of Vienne in 1311.
1Cf. Walter, Kirchenr. l.c. $158; and Ferraris, Bibliotheca prompia, etc.,
a.v. Appellatio.
8 De Concil. lib. i. ὁ, 5. 2 De Concil. lib. ii. 6, 15,
56 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
4. That of Pisa in 1409,
5. That of Constance, from 1414 to 1418,
6. That of Basle, from 1431 to 1439.
7. The fifth Lateran, from 1512 to 1517.
We have elsewhere’ considered whether the Synod of Sardica
can lay claim to the title of cecumenical, and we will again take
up the question at the proper time. We may here recapitu-
late, in five short propositions, the result of our researches :—
a. The history of the Council of Sardica itself furnishes no
reason for considering it to be cecumenical.
6. No ecclesiastical authority has declared it to be so.
c. We are not therefore obliged to consider it to be cecume-
nical; but we must also add,
d. That it was very early, and has been in all ages, highly
esteemed by the orthodox Church.
e. Besides, it is of small importance to discuss its cecu-
menical character, for it gave no decree in rebus jidei, and
therefore issued no decisions with the stamp of infallibility.
As for disciplinary decrees, whatever council promulgates
them, they are subject to modification in the course of time:
they are not irreformable, as are the doctrinal decrees of
cecumenical councils.
The Trullan Council, also called the Quinisext, is con-
sidered to be cecumenical by the Greeks only. The Latins
could not possibly have accepted several of its decrees, which
are drawn up in distinct opposition to the Roman Church:
for instance, the thirteenth canon, directed against the celibacy
observed in the West; the thirty-sixth canon, on the equal
rank of the Bishops of Constantinople and of Rome; and the
fifty-fifth canon, which forbids the Saturday’s fast.?
The Council of Vienne is generally considered to be the
fifteenth Gicumenical Council, and Bellarmin also accedes to
this.° The Jesuit Damberger, in his Synchronical History of
the Middle Ages, expresses a different opinion. “ Many his-
1 Tiibinger Quartalschrift, 1852, S. 399-415.
2 Cf. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. vii. vol. v. p. 528. Bellarmin. 1.6. 7.
3 De Concil. lib. i. ¢. 5.
ὁ Synchronistische Geschichte des Mittelaliers, Bd. xiii. 8. 177 f.
INTRODUCTION. 57
torians,” he says, “ especially French historians, consider this
Council to be one of the most famous, the most venerable,
and the most important which has been held, and regard it
as the fifteenth Gicumenical. The enemies of the Church will
gladly accept such an opinion. It is true that Pope Clement v.
wished to call an cecumenical council, and of this the Bull of
Convocation speaks; but Boniface vu. had also the same
desire, and yet no one would give such a name to the assembly
which he opened at Rome on the 13th October 1302. It is
also true that, after the bishops of all countries have been
summoned, the title and weight of an cecumenical council
cannot be refused to a synod under the pretext that many
bishops did not respond to the invitation; but the name
demands at least that the assembly should be occupied with
the common and universal concerns of the Church—that they
should come to decisions which should then be promulgated
for the obedience of the faithful. Now,” says Damberger,
“nothing of all this took place at the Council of Vienne.”
We reply, that this last statement is a mistake. The Council
promulgated a whole series of decrees, which in great measure
relate to the whole Church, and not merely to one province
only—for example, those concerning the Templars; and these
decrees were certainly published. Moreover, the fifth Lateran
Council, which we admit to be cecumenical, spoke of that of
Vienne, in its eighth session, as a generale. <A different
judgment must be given respecting the Council of Pisa, held
in 1409. It was naturally from the beginning considered to
be without weight or authority by the partisans of the two
Popes whom it deposed, viz. Gregory x1. and Benedict x11?
The Carthusian Boniface Ferrer, brother to S. Vincent Ferrer,
and legate of Benedict x1. at this Synod, called it an heretical
and diabolical assembly. But its character as cecumenical has
also been questioned by those who took no part for either of the
two antipopes—by Cardinal de Bar, and a little subsequently
by S. Antonine Archbishop of Florence.2 We might add to
these many friends of reform, like Nicholas of Clémonge and
1 Hard, ix. 1719. ome” Raynald. Contin. Annal. Baron. ad an. 1409, n. 74.
3 Cf. Bellarmin, de Concil. lib. i. c. 8; Mansi, Collect. Concil. xxvi. 1160;
and Lenfant, Hist. du Concile de Pise, p. 808 sq. :
58 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Theodoric of Brie, who were dissatisfied with it, Gerson,
on the contrary, who about this time wrote his book De
Auferibilitate Pape, defended the decrees of the Council of
Pisa. Almost all the Gallicans have tried, as he did, to give
an cecumenical character to this Council, because it was ‘the
first to make use of the doctrine of the superiority of a general
council to the Pope.’ But in order that a council shoul be
cecumenical, it must be recognised as such by the whole of
Christendom. Now, more than half the bishops of Christendom
(episcopatus dispersus), as well as whole nations, have protested
against its decisions, and would not receive them. For this
reason, neither ecclesiastical authority nor the most trust-
worthy theologians have ever numbered it among the cecume-
nical councils.” It must also be said that some Ultramontanes
have had too little regard for this Council, in saying that the
election made by it of Pope Alexander v. was valueless, and
that Gregory ΧΙ. was still the legitimate Pope until his volun-
tary abdication in 1415.8
The Gallicans were very anxious to prove the Council of
Constance to be cecumenical. It is true that it was assem-
bled in a regular manner; but, according to the principles
we ‘have explained above, it necessarily lost its cecumenical
character as long as it was separated from the head of
the Church. The sessions, however, which were held after
the election of Pope Martin v., and with his consent and
approbation—that is, sessions 42 to 45—-must be considered
as those of an cecumenical council. The same consideration
maust be given to the decrees of the earlier sessions, which
concern the faith (res fidet), and were given conciliariter as
they were approved by Pope Martin v. There was no special
enumeration of them given by the Pope; but he evidently
7'We may name Edmund Richer, Historia Concil. gen. lib. ii. c. 2, sec. ὃ:
Bossuet, Defensio cleri gallic. P. ii. lib. ix. c. 11; N. Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. xv.
et xvi. diss. ii. vol. ix. p. 267 sq.
3-Cf. Animadversiones, by Roncaglia, in Natal. Alex. l.c. p. 276 sq.
3 This is the opinion of Raynald in his Contin. Annalium Baron. ad ann.
1409, n. 79-81, and of Peter Ballerini, de Potestate ccclesiastica summorum
Pontificum et Concil. gen. c. 6. Bellarmin, on the contrary, considers Alex-
ander v. as the legitimate Pope, and calls the Council of Pisa a ΌΝΡΑΝ
generale nec appr obatum nec reprobatum.”’ .
INTRODUCTION. 59
intended those condemning the heresies of Huss and Wickliffe.
Natalis Alexander endeavours to show that this sanction also
comprehended the fourth and fifth sessions, and their decrees
establishing the superiority of councils over the Pope’ But
Roncaglia has refuted his opinion, and maintained the right
view of the matter, which we have already asserted.? As for
those who entirely refuse an cecumenical character to the
Council of Constance in all its parts, it suffices for their
refutation to recall, besides the approbation of Martin v., what
Pope Eugene Iv. wrote on the 22d July 1446 to his legates in
Germany: “Ad imitationem ss. PP. ct preedecessorum nostrorum,
sicut ule generalia concilia venerart consueverunt, sic generalia
concilia Constantiense et Basileense ab ejus initio usque ad trans-
lationem per nos factam, absque tamen prejudicio juris, digni-
tatis et proe-eminentie 5. Sedis apostolice ... cum omni
reverentia et devotione suscipimus, complectimur et veneranur” ὃ
[In imitation of the most holy Popes our predecessors, as
they have been wont to venerate general councils, so do we
receive with all reverence and devotion, embrace and venerate
the General Councils of Constance and Basle, yet without
prejudice to the right, dignity, and pre-eminence of the Holy
Apostolic See]. The moderate Gallicans maintain that the
Council of Basle was cecumenical until its translation to
Ferrara, and that it then lost this character; for it would be
impossible to consider as cecumenical the conciliabulum which
remained behind at Basle, and was continued later at Lau-
sanne under the antipope Felix ν᾿’ Edmund Richer® and the
advanced Gallicans, on the contrary, consider the whole of the
Council of Basle to be cecumenical, from its stormy beginning
to its inglorious end. Other theologians, on the contrary,
refuse this character to the Council of Basle in all its sessions.
This is the opinion of Bellarmin, Roneaglia, and L. Holstenius.®
1 Hist. Eccl. sec. xv. diss. iv. pp. 289, 317.
* Roncagl. Animadv. ad Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. l.c. pp. 361, 359.
* Roncagl. lc. p. 465; Raynald. Oont. Annal. Baron. ad an. 1446, n. 3.
* Nat. Alex. 1.0. ix. 433 sq.
δ Hist. Concil. gener. lib. iii. c. vii.
5 Bell. De Coneil. lib. 1. c. vii.; Roncaglia, in his Animadversiones in Nat.
Alex. l.c. p. 461; and Lucas Holstenius, in a special diss. inserted in Mansi,
xxix. 1222 sq,
60 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
According to Gieseler,’ Bellarmin has given the title of cecu-
menical to the Council of Basle in another passage of his
celebrated Disputationes.? This is not so. Bellarmin says
that the Council of Basle was legitimate at its opening, that
is to say, so long as the papal legate and a great number of
bishops were present; but subsequently, when it deposed the
Pope, it was only a conciliabulum schismaticum, seditiosum, et
qnullius prorsus auctoritatis. It was by Bellarmin’s advice
that the acts of the Council of Basle were not included in
the collection of cecumenical councils made at Rome in 1609.
Those who are absolutely opposed to the Council of Basle,
and refuse the cecumenical character to all its sessions, give the
following reasons :—
a. There was only a very small number of bishops (7-8)
at the first sessions of this Synod, and therefore one cannot
possibly consider it to be an cecumenical council.
b. Before its second session, this Council, promising no
good results, was dissolved by Pope Eugene Iv.
c. From this second session, according to the undeniable
testimony of history, the assembly was ruled by passion ; its
members were embittered against each other; business was
not carried on with becoming calmness, but in the midst of
complete anarchy; the bishops’ secretaries spoke and shouted
in the sessions, as A‘neas Sylvius and others testify.®
d. Eugene Iv. did certainly at a later period, after the
fifteenth session, confirm all that had been done in the pre-
ceding; but this confirmation was extorted from him when he
was ill, and by the threat that, if he did not consent to give
it, he should lose the adherence of the princes and cardinals,
and be deposed from the papal chair.*
e. This confirmation has no value, even supposing that the
Pope gave it in full consciousness, and with entire freedom ;
for it was only signed by him on condition that the members
of the Council of Basle should repeal all the decrees which
they had given against the authority of the Pope, which they
never did.
1 Kirchengesch. Bd. ii. 4, 8. 52. 2 De Eccl. Milit. lib. iii. c. 16.
~ Cf. Roneagl. Animadver, l.c. p. 463 A.
~ 4Cf. Turrecremata, in Roncaglia, lc. p. 463 A. 5 Hard. viii, 157 B, C.
INTRODUCTION. . ΟἹ
f. The Pope simply allowed the Council to continue its
sessions, and he withdrew his bull of dissolution again ; but
these concessions imply no sanction of what the Council had
done in its preceding sessions, and the Pope took care to declare.
this himself."
It appears to us to be going too far to refuse an cecumenical
character to the whole Council of Basle. The truth, accord-
ing to our view, lies between this opinion and that of the
moderate Gallicans in this way:
a. The Council of Basle was a true one from the first.
session to the twenty-fifth inclusive, that is, until its transla-
tion from Basle to Ferrara.
b. In these twenty-five sessions we must accept as valid
only such decrees as treat, 1st, Of the extinction of heresy ;
2d, Of the pacification of Christendom; 3d, Of the refor-
mation of the Church in its head and in its members ;—and
always on condition that these decrees are not prejudicial to
the papal power, and are approved by the Pope.
Our authority for the establishment of these two proposi-
tions is Pope Eugene Iv. himself, who, in a bull read during
the sixteenth session of the Council of Basle, sanctions those
decrees of the preceding sessions which treat of these three
points. In the letter already mentioned, which he wrote on
the 22d July 1446 to his legates in Germany, he says: “ As
my predecessors have venerated the ancient councils (evidently
meaning cecumenical councils), so do I receive cum omne
reverentia et devotione, etc., the General Councils of Constance.
and Basle, and this latter ab ejus initio usque ad translationem.
per nos factam, absque tamen projudicio juris, dignitatis et
pre-eminentic, S. Sedis apostolicee ac potestatis sibi et in eadcm
canonice sedentibus concessee.”*
But it is asked whether this acceptance be admissible,
whether ecclesiastical authority had not already broken the
staff over the whole Council of Basle. A passage in a bull
published by Pope Leo x., in the eleventh session of the fifth
(Ecumenical Lateran Council, has been made use of for the
support of this objection. It is as follows: “Cum ea omnia
1 Cf. Turrecremata in Roncaglia, ἴ.6. p. 464, ὃ.
5 Cf. Roncaglia, lc. p. 465, a; Raynald ad. an. 1446, n. 8,
62 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
post translationem ejusdem Basileensis Concilii....... 6
Basileenst conciliabulo seu potius conventicula que presertin
post hujusmodi translationem concilium anyplius appellari non
merebatur, facta exstiterint ac propterea nullum robur habue-
rint.”* In this passage Pope Leo x. condemns what was
resolved during the latter sessions of the Council of Basle,
and which was taken into the pragmatic sanction of Bourges
in 1438; and on this occasion he speaks of the Council of
Basle in a very unfavourable manner. But apart from the
fact that we might allege against this passage, which asserts
the superiority of the Pope over a general council, what the
Gallicans have already adduced against it, we will observe:
(α.) Even in this passage Pope Leo distinguishes between the
Council of Basle, the assembly held before the translation, and
the conciliabulum which began after the translation. (b.) It is
true that he does not speak favourably of the Council itself,
and the word presertim seems to imply blame; but the Pope’s
language can be easily explained, if we reflect that he has
in view the decrees which diminish the power of the Pope,
—decrees which were afterwards inserted in the pragmatic
sanction. He might therefore speak unfavourably of these
decisions of the Council of Basle, as Pope Eugene iv. did,
without rejecting the whole Synod of Basle.
It must also be understood in what sense Father Ulrich
Mayr of Kaisersheim was condemned by Pope Clement x1v,,
viz, for maintaining that the twenty-five first sessions of the
Council of Basle had the character and weight of sessions of
an cecumenical council.? The opinion of Mayr is very different
from ours: we do not accept all the decrees of the twenty-five
first sessions, but only those which can be accepted under the
conditions enumerated above.
Some theologians, particularly Gallicans, since the time of
Louis xIVv.,’ will not recognise the fifth Lateran Council as
cecumenical, on account of the small number of its members ;
but the true reason for their hostility against this Council is
that, in union with the Crown of France, it abolished the
pragmatic sanction of Bourges, which asserted the liberties of
1 Hard. ix. 1828. * Walch, Neuste Religions-geschichte, Bd. v. 5. 245.
3 Cf. Dupin, de Antiqua Ecclesie Disciplina, p. 344.
)
INTRODUCTION, 63
the Gallican Church, and concluded another concordat. These
attacks cannot, however, be taken into consideration: for the
great majority of Catholic theologians consider this Council
to be cecumenical; and even France, at an earlier period,
recognised it as such," Here, then, we offer a corrected table
of the cecumenical councils :—
That of Nicza in 325,
The first of Constantinople in 381.
That of Ephesus in 431.
That of Chalcedon in 451.
The second of Constantinople in 553.
The third of Constantinople in 680.
The second of Nicea in 787.
The fourth of Constantinople in 869,
. The first of Lateran in 1123.
10. The second of Lateran in 1139.
11. The third of Lateran in 1179.
12. The fourth of Lateran in 1215.
13. The first of Lyons in 1245.
14. The second of Lyons in 1274.
15. That of Vienne in 1311.
16. The Council of Constance, from 1414 to 1418; that
is to say: (a.) The latter sessions presided over by Martin v.
(sessions 41—45 inclusive) ; (0.) In the former sessions al! the
decrees sanctioned by Pope Martin v., that is, those concern-
ing the faith, and which were given conciliariter.
17. The Council of Basle, from the year 1431; that is
to say: (α.) The twenty-five first sessions, until the transla-
tion of the Council to Ferrara by Eugene tv.; (0.) In these
twenty-five sessions the decrees concerning the extinction of
heresy, the pacification of Christendom, and the general refor-
mation of the Church in its head and in its members, and
which, besides, do not strike at the authority of the apostolic
chair; in a word, those decrees which were afterwards sanc-
tioned by Pope Eugene Iv.
17b. The assemblies held at Ferrara and at Florence
(1438-42) cannot be considered as forming a separate cecu-
menical council. They were merely the continuation of the
1 Cf. Roncaglia in N. Alex. le. p. 470.
COO MTD OR oO bo μὶ
64 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Council of Basle, which was transferred to Ferrara by Eugene
Iv. on the 8th January 1438, and from thence to Florence in
January 1439.
18. The fifth of Lateran, 1512-17.
19. The Council of Trent, 1545-63.
Sec. 11. Customs observed in Hewmenical Councils with respe.t
to Signatures, Precedence, Manner of Voting, ete.
In some countries—for instance, in Africa—the bishops
held rank in the councils according to the period of their
consecration; in other parts they ranked according to the
episcopal see which they filled. The priests and deacons repre-
senting their absent bishop occupied the place belonging to
that bishop in those councils which were held in the East ;
but in the West this custom was not generally followed.
In the Spanish councils the priests always signed after the
bishops. The Council of Arles (A.D. 314), in the signatures
to which we cannot remark any order, decided that if a
bishop brought several clerics with him (even in minor
orders), they should give their signatures immediately after
their bishop, and before the bishop who followed. The order
of the signatures evidently indicates also the order of pre-
cedence. ‘This Council of Arles gives an exception to this
rule, for the Pope’s legates—the two priests Claudian and
Vitus'—siened only after several bishops; whilst in all the
other councils, and even in the Eastern, the legates always
signed before all the other bishops and the patriarchs, even
though they were but simple priests.”
In the thirteenth century Pope Clement Iv. ordained that,
in order to distinguish the bishops from the exempt abbots in
the synods, the latter should only have mitres bordered with
gold, without pearls, without precious stones, or gold plates.
The abbots who were not “exempt” were only to have white
mitres, without borders.®
The members of the councils ordinarily were seated in the
1 Hard. i. 266.
2 See above, p. 27 f., on what we have said with regard to the president at the
ecumenical councils.
3. Salmon, 7'raité de l’ Etude des Conciles, 1726, p. 860.
INTRODUCTION 65
form of a circle, in the centre of which was placed the book
of the Holy Scriptures. There were added also sometimes the
collections of the ecclesiastical canons, and the relics of the
saints. Behind each bishop was generally seated the priest
who accompanied him; the deacon used to sit lower, on one
side, or before the bishop.’
With respect to the ceremonies at the opening of the
ancient Spanish councils, we have an order of the fourth
Council of Toledo, which met in 633 (can. 4), which pre-
scribed as follows: “Before sunset on the day appointed
(May 18), all those who are in the church must come out ;
and all the doors must be shut, except the one by which the
bishops enter, and at this door all the ostiarid (porters) will
station themselves. The bishops will then come and take
their places, according to the times of their ordination. When
they have taken their places, the elected priests, and after
them the deacons, will come in their turn to take their places.
The priests sit behind the bishops; the deacons are in front ;
and all are seated in the form of a circle. Last of all, those
laity are introduced whom the council by their election have
judged worthy of the favour. The notaries who are necessary
are also introduced.
“All keep silence. When the archdeacon says, ‘Let us
pray’ (orate), all prostrate themselves upon the ground, After
several moments, one of the oldest bishops rises and recites a
prayer in a loud voice, during which all the rest remain on
their knees. The prayer having been recited, all answer
‘AMEN ;’ and they rise when the archdeacon says, ‘Stand
up’ (erigite vos). While all keep silent, a deacon, clad in a
white alb, brings into the midst the Book of the Canons, and
reads the rules for the holding of councils. When this is
ended, the metropolitan gives an address, and calls on those
present to bring forward their complaints. If a priest, a
deacon, or a layman has any complaint to make, he makes it
known to the archdeacon of the metropolitan church; and the
latter, in his turn, will bring it to the knowledge: of the
council, No bishop is to withdraw without the rest, and no
one is to pronounce the council dissolved before all the busi-
1 Salmon, 1.6. p. 861. of 43
E
66 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
ness is ended.” The Synod: concluded with a ceremony
similar to that of the opening; the metropolitan then pro-
claimed the time of celebrating Easter, and that of the meeting
of the next synod, and some bishops were chosen to assist the
metropolitan at Christmas and Easter.’
Before the Council of Constance, they voted by numbers in
all the councils; but at that Council, to neutralize the advan-
tage the Italian prelates derived from their large number, the
votes were given by nations. Five nations—lItaly, France,
Germany, England, and Spain—each had right to one vote;
and within the nation they of course voted by numbers.
Another arrangement was introduced into the Council. They
divided, without distinctions: of nationality, all who were
present at the Synod into four great commissions—of the
Faith, of the Peace, of the Reform of the Church, and of
general business. Each commission had its own president,
and they combined the commissions three times a week.
When a commission had made a decree, it was communi-
cated to the other three; and if it was approved by three
commissions at the least, it was announced as a decree of
the Synod by the president of the Council in a general
session.”
In the councils which followed that of Basle this manner
of voting was abandoned ; and when, at the commencement
of the Council of Trent, the Pope’s legates asked if they would
vote by nations or by heads, the latter was the method which
was recommended, as being the most conformable to the tradi-
tions of the Church. ‘This is at least what Sarpi® and Palla-
vicini‘ relate. Sarpi adds, that several Fathers of the Council
of Trent actually demanded to vote by nations; but this
‘statement is refuted by Pallavicini, who proves that no one
made that demand, and that the question asked by the legates
was simply a prudential measure.” The Council of Trent
introduced a practice which was a departure from ancient
custom. In the ancient councils the discussions upon the
decrees to be promulgated took place during the sessions
1 ard. i. 6 sqq., iii. 580. 3 Hard. viii. 1439. 271,29) ° 4 vi 4, nD.
5 See Brischar, Beurtheilung der Controversen Sarpis und Pallav. Bd. i.
8. 151 f. ἢ
INTRODUCTION. 67
themselves; and the acts of these councils contain discussions
of great length. In the Council of Trent, on the contrary,
each matter was first carefully discussed in particular com-
missions ; and when all was ready, and in fact decided upon,
they presented the decree to the general session for confirma-
tion. The acts of the Council of Trent, for this reason,
contain no discussions, but only decrees, ete.
The decisions of the synods were regularly published in
the name of the synod itself; but sometimes, when the Pope
presided, the decrees were published in the form of papal
decrees, with the addition of the formula: “ with the appro-
bation of the sacred cecumenical council” (sacra universatt
synodo approbante). This took place at the third, the fourth,
and the fifth Lateran Councils, and in part also at the Council
of Constance."
Sec. 12. Histories of the Councils.
James Merlin, canon and chief penitentiary of the metro-
politan church of Paris, was the first who had a collection of
the acts of the councils published. This edition, naturally
very incomplete, appeared at Paris in 1523, in one folio
volume, in two parts. A second impression was published at
Koln in 1530, enriched by two documents, the golden bull
of Charles Iv., and the bull of Pius 1. in which he for-
bade an appeal from the Pope to an cecumenical council.
The third edition, in octavo, published at Paris in 1536,
had no additions. Like all the collections of the councils
which have been made after it, with the exception of the
toman edition of 1609, the edition of Merlin contained, with
the acts of the cecumenical councils, those of several provin-
cial synods, as well as many papal decretals. It may be men-
tioned that this alone had the collection of the false Isidorian
Decretals printed in a continuous form, whilst in the more
recent collections they are distributed in chronological order,
assigning to each council or each Pope the part attributed to
him by the pseudo-Isidore.’
1 Hard. vi. P. ii. 1674; vii. 18, 24; ix. 1613, 1618, 1677, ete.
? The longest details on Merlin’s edition are found in the work of Salmon,
doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, 7'raité de l’ Etude des Conciles et de leurs
658 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
In 1538 ‘there appeared at Kéln a second collection of
the acts of the councils (two volumes folio), fuller than that
of Merlin. It was published by the Belgian Franciscan,
Peter Crabbe}! who, to make it more complete, had searched
in no less than five hundred libraries. The second edition,
enlarged, dated 1551, is in three folio volumes.” Lawrence
Servius, the celebrated convert and Carthusian,’ published at
Koln another and somewhat more complete collection of the
councils in 1657, in four folio volumes; and the printer,
Dominic Nicolini, put forth at Venice, in 1585, with the
assistance of the Dominican Dominic Bollanus, a new im-
pression, in five volumes folio.*
Professor Severin Binius, canon of Koln, surpassed his pre-
decessors by publishing another collection of the councils, in
four volumes folio, in 1606. The text of the councils was
enriched by historical and critical notes, taken for the most
part from Baronius. The two later editions, which were pub-
lished in 1618 and 1636, are still better than the first. The
latter was published at Paris by Charles Morel, in nine
volumes? as the Roman collection of the acts of the councils
could here be made use of. This Roman collection contained
only the acts of the cecumenical councils. It consisted of
four folio volumes, and was compiled between 1608 and 1612
under the authority of Pope Paul v. This work gave for the
first time the original Greek text of many of the synodal acts,
copied from the manuscripts of the Vatican and other mss.°
The learned Jesuit Sirmond was the principal author of this
collection; he wrote the interesting introduction which was
prefixed to the whole work. At the beginning of the acts of
each council there is a succinct but by no means worthless
history of that council in Latin, which has been inserted into
collections, ete., nouvelle edition, Paris 1726, pp. 288 sq. and 724. In this
last passage Salmon points out the faults of Merlin’s collections.
1 Pierre Grable in Fr. transl.—Ep.
2 On its character and defects, see Salmon, J.c. p. 291, etc., and 728-740.
3 He was born at Liibeck.
4 Salmon, lc. pp. 296 sq. and 743-752.
5 On the character andthe defects of the edition of Binius, sec Salmon, le.
pp- 300, 756-769.
6 Salmon, Jc. pp. 801, 752 sqq.
—_
INTRODUCTION, 69
several other more modern collections,—in particular, into
that of Mansi’ We have already said that, by the advice of
Bellarmin, the acts of the Synod of Basle were not admitted
into this collection.
’ This Roman edition has served as a basis for all subsequent
editions: these have added the acts of the national and pro-
vincial synods, besides the most important edicts and decrees
of the Popes, all of them avoiding several faults and several
singularities of the Roman editors.” In these more recent
editions the text has often also been improved by the study of
various Mss., and has been enriched by many fragments and
original documents which were wanting in the Roman edition.
The first collection which was made after the Roman col-
lection is the Collectio Regia, which appeared at Paris in 1644
at the royal printing press, in thirty-seven folio volumes.®
The printing and all the material part is magnificent, but
the same praise cannot be awarded to the editing; for even
those faults of the Roman edition which had been pointed out
by Father Sirmond still remained uncorrected. In spite of
the great number of its volumes, the royal edition is nearly
one-fourth less complete than that of the Jesuit Philip Labbe
(Labbeus) of Bourges. Labbe died in 1667, whilst he was.
labouring on the ninth and tenth volumes of his collection ;.
but Father Gabriel Cossart,a member of the same order, con-.
tinued his work, which appeared at Paris in 1674.4 Stephen.
Baluze wished to add to this edition a supplement which
would contain four volumes in folio, but only one volume has.
seen the light. Almost all the French savans quote from
this edition of Labbe’s with Baluze’s supplement, making
use of all these works, and consulting, besides, a very large-
number of Mss. John Hardouin, a Jesuit, gave a new Con-
ciliorum Collectio regia maxima ad P. Labber et P. Gabrielis Cos-
sartt.... labores haud modica accessione facta, οἴ... Hardouin
1 It is not found in that of Hardouin.
2 Salmon, J.c. p. 302. 3 Salmon, /.c. pp. 305, 769 sqq.
* Seventeen vols. in folio ; Salmon, U.c. pp. 806, 772, 784.
* Paris 1683 (another edition in 1707), under the title, Nova Collectio Cone
ciliorum : Supplementum Conciliorum Labbei. Cf. Salmon, l.c. pp. 312, 784.
® Paris 1715, in twelve vols, folio, containing eleven parts, the sixth part being
in two volumes.
70 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
had been in 1685 entrusted with this work by the French
clergy, on the condition that he submitted it for examination
to Dr. Vitasse, professor of the Sorbonne, and to Le Merre, an
advocate of the Parliament. Hardouin submitted only for a
short time to this condition, as he gained the protection of
Louis xIv., who accepted the dedication of the work, and
allowed it to be printed at the royal press. These different
circumstances gave to the work a kind of official character,
which contributed not a little to render it suspected by the
Jansenists and Gallicans, as Hardouin in his dedication to
Louis xiv. showed himself a very warm partisan of the Bull
Unigentus, and the bull itself was inserted in the last
volume; besides which, the Jndex rerum betrayed an oppo-
sition to Gallican principles. He took care to point out
especially (see, ¢.g., the art. on the authority of councils) the
decisions of the Popes or of the councils which were opposed
to the principles and maxims of the Gallican divines. Louis
xiv. died at the moment when the printing of the work was
almost finished; and as the Duke of Orleans, who then became
regent, favoured the Jansenists, and showed himself hostile to
the Bull Unigenitus, advantage was taken to complain to the
Parliament of the publication of Hardouin’s work. Parlia-
ment ordered Elias Dupin, Chas. Vitasse, Denys Léger, and
Philip Anquetil to draw up a report on the subject; in conse-
quence of which the sale of the work was prohibited, as being
opposed to the principles of the State, and to those of the
Gallican Church (1716). They destroyed all the copies they
could seize, but happily some had already been sent from
France. Later on, the Parliament was obliged to yield to the
wishes loudly expressed in various quarters for the publica-
tion of the work. They authorized it, but on the condition
that the Jesuits should add a volume of corrections, thinking
they would by these means weaken the Ultramontanism of
Hardouin. This volume appeared in 1722,’ printed at the
royal press, under the title, Addition ordonnée par arrét du
Parlement, pour étre jointe ἃ la Collection des Coneiles, etc. In
the following year the Jesuits obtained the free publication of
Hardouin’s edition, without its being accompanied by the addi-
1Jn folio, written in Latin and French.
INTRODUCTION, ἯΣ
tional volume; and they gained their point so well, that that
volume was even suppressed. Since then the Jansenists have
republished it at Utrecht in 1730 and 1751, with this title,
Avis des censeurs nommés par le Parlement de Paris pour exa-
miner, ete.
Since Hardouin’s edition has been widely circulated, it has
become the favourite text-book of learned men among Catho-
lics as well as Protestants. It is this which Benedict xiv.
always quotes in his work, De synodo Diawcesana. It is com-
posed of a rich collection of conciliar acts and other important
documents, and extends as far as 1714, thus going much
further than Mansi’s celebrated edition. It is recommended
on account of its very beautiful and correct although small
type, and especially for the five very complete tables which it
contains.
These tables contain: (1) a chronological table of all the
Popes ; (2) a table of all the councils; (3) an index episco-
porum et aliorum qui conciliis interfuerunt ; (4) an index
geographicus episcopatuum ;? (5) lastly, a very complete index
verum et verborum memorabilium. On account of these ad-
vantages, we have also used and quoted Hardouin’s collection
in our History of the Councils, along with the more complete
work of Mansi. Salmon has analysed the details of Har-
douin’s collection, and has given a long list of its faults.’
As doctor of the Sorbonne, Salmon was -not able to judge
favourably of Hardouin’s collection, to which he would rather
have preferred that of Labbe and Cossart. He has, how-
ever, acknowledged the improvements and additions which
distinguish Hardouin’s work.
The collections which follow have been made since the
publication of Salmon’s work. ‘The first is that of Nicholas
Coleti, which appeared at Venice under the title, Sacrosancta
concilia ad regiam editionem exacta.* The Dominican Mansi,
10On the history of Hardouin’s edition, see Bower's Hist. of the Popes
{Mambach’s translation, Bd. iv. 5. 68]—the preliminary dissertation on the col-.
Jections of the councils.
2 See Salmon, ἴ. 6. Ὁ. 817 seq.
3 Salmon, l.c. pp. 315-331, 786-831.
4 Twenty-three vols. folic, and 2 vols. Apparatus, 1728-1724.
72 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
who became Archbishop of Lucca, his native town, com-
piled a supplement to Coleti’s work. Several years after-
wards, Mansi undertook a new collection of the acts of the
councils, which should be more complete than all those which
had hitherto appeared. He kept his word; and at the com-
mencement of 1759, thirty-one volumes in folio of this edition
appeared at Florence, with the title, Sacrorwm conciliorum nova
et amplissima collectio, in qua preter ea que Phil. Labbeus et
Gabr. Cossartus. et novissime Nicolaus Coletti in lucem edidere,
ca omnia insuper suis in locis optime disposita exhibentur, que
Jo. Dom. Mansi Lucensis, congregationis Matris Dei, evulgavit.
Lditio Novissima, ab eodem Patre Mansi, potissimum favorem
etiam et opem prestante Em. Cardinali Dominico Passioneo,
S. Sedis apostolice bibliothecario, aliisque item eruditissimis
viris manus auxiliatrices ferentibus, curata, novorum conciliorum,
novorumgue documentorumque additionibus locwpletata, ad MSs.
codices Vaticanos Lucenses aliosque recensita et perfecta. Acce-
dunt etiam note et dissertationes quam plurime ; que in ceteris
editionrbus desiderantur. This edition was not completed, and
the thirty-first volume reached only to the fifteenth century.
It had consequently no indices, and its type, although larger
and more modern than that of Hardouin’s edition, is yet very
inferior to the latter in accuracy. ‘The order of the subjects
in the latter volumes is sometimes not sufficiently methodical,
and is at variance with the chronology.
By the side of these general collections there are other
works, which contain only the acts of the councils held in
particular countries. To these belong—
1, The Concilia Germanic, by Schannat and Harzheim, in
eleven volumes folio (Céln 1749-1790); Binterim, Prag-
matische Geschichte der deutschen National- Provincial- und vor-
ztiglichsten Didcesan-concilien* (Mainz 1835-1848), in seven
volumes octavo, which reached as far as the end of the fifteenth
century. We may, besides, consult, for the history of the
German councils: (a) Liinig, Entwurf der in Deutschland von
Anfang des Christenthums gehaltenen General- Provincial- und
1 Six vols. folio, 1748-1752.
2 Pragmatic History of the National, Provincial. and principal Diocesan
Synods of Germany.
INTRODUCTION, 73
Partikularconcilien; in his Spicilegium des deutschen Reichs-
archivs, P. i. p. 822; (6) Pfaff, Delineatio collectionis nove
conciliorum Germanic, reprinted in Fabricius, Biblioth. Greca,
ed. Harless, t. xii. p. 310 sqq.; (ὁ) Joh. And. Schmid, Diss.
de historia conciliorum Moguntinensium, Helmst. 1713; (ὦ) De
conciltis Moguntinis, in the work of Georg Christian Johannes,
Scriptor. Mogunt. vol. iii. p. 281 sqq. Cf. Walch, Hist. der
Kirchenvers. 8. 53, and Salmon, Jc. p. 382 sqq.
2. Concilia antique Gallie, by Father Sirmond (Paris 1629),
in three volumes folio, and one volume folio,—a _ supple-
ment added by his cousin De la Lande in 1666. Concilia
novissima Gallie a tempore concilit Tridentini celebrata, ed.
Ludov. Odespun de la Mechiniére, a priest of Tours (Paris
1646), one volume folio.’ Shortly before the Revolution, the
Benedictines of the congregation of 8. Maur undertook a
complete collection of the councils of France ; but one folio
volume alone appeared (Paris 1789), with the title, Concili-
orum Gallie tam editorum quam ineditorum Collectio, temporum
ordine digesta ab anno Christi 177 ad an. 1563, cum epistolis
pontificum, principum constitutionibus et alwis ecclesiastice rer
Gallicane monumentis. Opera et studio monachorum congre-
gationis S. Mauri, t.i. ab anno 177 ad annum 591. Paris,
sumptibus Petri Didot. In folio.
3. Garcias Loaisa was the first to publish a collection of
the Spanish councils, at Madrid 1593, in one volume folio.
That of Cardinal Joseph Saenz de Aguirre is much more com-
plete: Collectio maxima Conciliorum omnium Hispanie et
novi orbis (Rome 1693), in four volumes folio.* More recent
is the Collectio canonum Ecclesie Hispane ex probatissimis et
pervetustis Codicibus nune primum in lucem edita a publica
1 Sketch of the General, Provincial, and Particular Councils held in Germany
since the commencement of Christianity.
2 “ὁ Snicilége” of the Archives of the German Empire.
3 See, on the French collections, Salmon, ἰ.6. p. 335 sqq., and Bower’s History
of the Popes, l.c. S. 76 ff. He speaks also of collections which include only
synods of. certain ecclesiastical divisions of France, e.g. that of Tours, Nar-
bonne, ete.
“Cf. Salmon, J.c. p. 365 sq. ; and Bower, 1.6., who, instead of 1693, ΕΣ &
false date, 1639, Aguirre was not born until 1630.
74 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
Matritensi bibliotheca (per FRANC. ANT. GONZALEZ, publ. Matr.
bibl. prefectum), Matriti, ex typographia regia, 1808. In folio.
4, England and Ireland had two collections. The older is
that of Henry Spelman: Concilia, decreta, leges, constitutiones
dn ve Leclesiarum orbis Britannici, London, ὦ 1. 1639, t. 1].
1664; the third volume, although announced, never appeared.’
That of David Wilkins followed, which is better and more
complete: Concilia Magna Britannic et Hibernie, ed. Dav.
Wixkins (London 1734), in four volumes folio.
5. Sacra coneilia LHeclesice Romano-catholice in regno Un-
garic, a collection due to Father Charles Peterfy (Vienna
1742), in two volumes folio.
6. There does not exist a general collection of the Italian
councils, but the councils of certain periods or of certain pro-
vinces have been in part collected. There is, ¢.g., a collection of
the synods held at Milan, by 8. Charles Borromeo (in his com-
plete works); a Synodicon Beneventanensis LHeclesie, by Vine.
Mar. Orsini (Pope Benedict x1I.), Beneventum 1695, folio.
Among the numerous works on the history of the councils,
the most useful to consult are:
1. John Cabassutius’ Notitia Ecclesiastica historiarum con-
ciliorum ct canonum, Lyons 1680, folio. Very often reprinted.
2. Hermant, Histoire des Conciles, Rouen 1730, four
volumes Svo.
3. Labbe, Synopsis Historica Conciliorum, in vol. i. of his
Collection of Councils.
4, Edm. Richer, Historia conciliorum generalium (Paris
1680), three volumes 4to. Reprinted in 8vo at Coln.
5. Charles Ludovic Richard, Analysis conciliorwim gene-
ralium ct particulariwm. Translated from French into Latin
by Dalmasus. Four volumes 8vo, Augsburg 1778.
6. Christ. Wilh. Franz Walch, Lntwurf einer vollstdndigen
Historie der Kirchenversammlungen,® Leipzig 1759.
7. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Greca, edit. Harless, t. xii. p. 422
1 See Salmon, J.c. p. 876 sq. ; and Bower, 1.6. S. 94 ff, who did not know
the more recent collection of Wilkins.
2 The first vol. of a new edition of Wilkins, admirably edited by Haddan and
Stubbs, has lately appeared.-—Ep.
3 Sketch of a complete History of the Councils,
INTRODUCTION. 75
sqq., in which is contained an alphabetical table of all the coun-
cils, and an estimate of the value of the principal coilections.
8. Alletz, Concilien-Leaikon, translated from French into
German by Father Maurus Disch, a Benedictine and professor
at Augsburg, 1843.
9. Dictionnaire universel et complet des Conciles, tant généraux
que particuliers, etc., rédigé par M. Abbé P , prétre du
Diocése de Paris, published by the Abbé Migne (Paris 1846),
two volumes 4to.
In the great works on ecclesiastical history—for example,
in the Nouvelle Bibliotheque des auteurs LKeclesiastiques, by EL.
Dupin, and the Historia Literaria of Cave, and particularly in
the excellent Histoire des auteurs sacrés, by Remi Ceillier—we
find matter relating to the history of the councils. Salmon,
le. p. 8387 sqq., and Walch in his Historie der Kirchenver-
sammlungen, pp. 48-67, have pointed out a large number of
works on the history of the councils. There are also very
valuable dissertations on the same subject in
1. Christian Lupus’ Synodorum generalium ac provincialium
decreta et canones, scholiis, notis ac historica actorum dissertatione
dllustrata, Louv. 1665, Bruxelles 1673, five volumes 4to.
2. Lud. Thomassin, Dissertationum in Concilia generalia et
particularia, t. 1. Paris 1667; reprinted in Rocaberti, Bul.
pontificra, t. Xv.
3. Van Espen, TJractatus Historicus, exhibens scholia wm
omnes canones conciliorum, etc., in his complete works.
4. Barth. Caranza has written a very complete and useful
abstract of the acts of the councils in his Swmma Conciliorum,
which has often been re-edited.
5. George Daniel Fuchs, deacon of Stuttgart, has, in his
Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen (four volumes, Leipsic
1780-1784), given German translations and abstracts of the
acts of the councils in the fourth and fifth centuries.
6. Francis Salmon, Doctor and Librarian of the Sorbonne,
has published an Introduction to the Study of the Councils, in
his Zraité de ?Etude des Conciles et de lewrs collections, Paris
1724, in 4to, which has often been reprinted.
BOOK I.
ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS.
pres Gsaw
CHAPTER I.
COUNCILS OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES.
a. first Christian Council, the type and model of all
the others, was held at Jerusalem by the apostles
between the years 50 and 52 A.D., in order to solve the ques-
tion of the universal obligation of the ancient law.’ No other
councils were probably held in the first century of the Christian
era; or if they were, no trace of them remains in history.
On the other hand, we have information of several councils
in the second century. The authenticity of this information
is not, it is true, equally established for all; and we can
acknowledge as having really taken place only those of which
Eusebius Pamphili, the father of Christian Church history,
speaks, or other early and trustworthy historians. To these
belong, first of all :—
Sec. 1. Synods relative to Montanism.
Eusebius has given us, in his Church History? a fragment
of a work composed by Apollinaris Bishop of Hierapolis in
Phrygia? in which the following words occur: “ The faithful
of Asia, at many times and in many places (πολλάκις καὶ
πολλαχῇ τῆς ᾿Ασίας), came together to consult on the subject
of Montanus and his followers; and these new doctrines were
examined, and declared strange and impious.” * This fragment
. 4 Acts xv. 2 Lib. v. c. 16. 3 Sec. ii.
. 4In his notes to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. l.c.), Valesius (Du Valois) presumes,
indeed, that the author of the work from which this fragment’ is taken is not
77
78 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
unfortunately gives no other details, and does not point out
the towns at which these synods were held; but the Libellus
Synodicus of Pappus tells us that Apollinaris, the holy Bishop
of Hierapolis in Asia, and twenty-six of his colleagues in the
episcopate, held a provincial council at Hierapolis, and there
tried and condemned Montanus and Maximilla the false pro-
phets, and at the same time Theodotus the currier (the cele-
brated anti-Trinitarian'). Further on he adds: “A holy and
particular (μερική) synod, assembled under the very holy
Bishop Sotas of Anchialus (in Thrace, on the Black Sea), and
consisting of twelve other bishops, convicted of heresy the
currier Theodotus, Montanus, and Maximilla, and condemned
them.”
The Libellus Synodicus? to which we are indebted for these
details, it is true, can lay claim to no very early origin, as it
was compiled by a Greek towards the close of the ninth
century. But this Greek derived his statements from ancient
authentic sources; and what he says of the two synods agrees
so perfectly with the statement of Eusebius, that in this
passage it is worthy of all confidence. We read in Eusebius’
Church History (book v. cc. 16 and 19), that Apollinaris of
Hierapolis, and Sotas of Anchialus, contemporaries of Mon-
tanus, zealously opposed his errors, and wrote and preached
against him. Sotas even wished to exorcise the evil spirit
from Priscilla, a companion of Montanus; but these hypocrites,
adds Eusebius, did not consent to it.
The strong opposition which these two bishops made to
Montanus makes it probable that they gave occasion to several
Apollinaris, but Asterius Urbanus. Baluze disagrees with this statement (Mansi’s
Collect. Concil. i. 693). It is, however, indifferent for our purpose whether the
fragment in question be Apollinaris’ or Asterius’.
1 Mansi, i. 723; Hard. v. 1493.
? This Libellus Synodicus, called also Synodicon, contains brief notices of 158
councils of the first nine centuries, and comes down to the eighth Cicumenical
Council. It was brought from the Morea in the sixteenth century by Andreas
Darmasius, and bought. by Pappus, a theologian of Strassburg, and edited by
him for the first time with a Latin translation. It was afterwards transferred
to the Collection of Councils. Hardouin had it printed in the fifth volume of
his Collect. Concil. p. 1491 sqq.; and Mansi separated its various parts, and
added them to the various synods to which they belonged.
»7,6, G49,
SYNODS RELATIVE TO MONTANISM. 79
of the numerous synods in which, according to the summaries
of Eusebius, the Church rejected Montanism.
The date of these synods is nowhere exactly pointed out.
The fragment which is given in Eusebius’ proves that they
were held shortly after the commencement of the Montanist
agitations ; but the date of the rise of Montanism itself is
uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius gives 172; S. Epi-
phanius 126 in one place, and 156 or 157 in another.” He
says, besides,’ that Maximilla died about a.p. 86. In this
there is perhaps an error of a whole century. Blondel, relying
on these passages, has shown that Montanus and his heresy
arose about 140 or 141; and, more recently, Schwegler of
Tiibingen* has expressed the same opinion. Pearson, Dodwell,
and Neander, on the contrary, decide for 156 or 157; Tille-
mont and Walch’ for 171. As for our own opinion, we have
adopted Blondel’s opinion (the year 140), because the Shepherd
of Hermas, which was certainly anterior to 151, and was
written when Pius I. was Pope, seems already to oppose Mon-
tanism.’ In this case, the synods with which we are occupied
must have taken place before 150 of the Christian era. The
Libellus Synodicus gives a contrary decision to this, although
it attributes to the same synods the condemnation of the
currier Theodotus, whose apostasy can be fixed only at the
time of the persecution by M. Aurelius (160-180). In reality,
Theodotus was excommunicated at Rome by Pope Victor
towards the close of the second century (192-202). In
allowing that sentence of condemnation had been pronounced
against him before that time in certain synods of Asia Minor
and of Thrace (he was living at Constantinople at the time of
his apostasy), those synods which, according to the Lzbellus
Synodicus, have also condemned Montanism could not have
been held before M. Aurelius: they must therefore have been
held under that Emperor. The supposition that Theodotus
and Montanus were contemporary would oblige us to date
1 Hist. Eccl. v. 16. 2 Heres. 51. 88 and 48. 1.
3 Heres. 48. 2. 4 Der Montanismus, 1841, S. 255.
5 Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. i. 5. 615 f.
6 Compare the author’s treatise, tiber Montanus und die Montanisten, in the
Freiburger Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii. 5. 255, and the Prolegomena to Hefele’s third
edition of the Patres Apostolici, p. 1xxxiii.
80 _ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
these councils between A.D. 160 and 180; but to us it appears
doubtful whether these two were contemporaries, and the
conclusicn that they were so seems to result from a confusion
of the favts. In reality, the author of the ancient fragment
given us by Eusebius’ speaks also of a Theodotus who was
one of the first followers of Montanus, and shared his fate,
t.c. was anathematized in the same synods with Montanus and
Maximilla. He depicts him as a well-known man. The
author of the Libellus Synodicus having read this passage, and
finding that the ancient Synods of Hierapolis and Anchi lus
had condemned a Theodotus, easily identified the currier Theo-
dotus with the Theodotus whom the author of the fragment
declared to be celebrated in his time. If this is so, nothing
will hinder our placing the rise of Montanism and the Synods
of Hierapolis and Anchialus before a.p. 150.
Sec. 2. Synods concerning the Feast of Easter.
The second series of councils in the second century was
caused by the controversy regarding the time of celebrating
Easter. It is not quite correct to regard the meeting of 8.
Polycarp of Smyrna, and Anicetus Bishop of Rome, towards
the middle of the second century, as a synod properly so
ealled ;” but it is certain that towards the close of the same
century several synods were occasioned by the Easter con-
troversy. Eusebius, in the passage referred to, only shows in
a general way that these synods were held in the second half
of the second century; but 8. Jerome gives a more exact
date, he says in his Chronicle, under the year 196: “ Pope
Victor wrote to the most eminent bishops of all countries, re-
commending them to call synods in their provinces, and to
celebrate in them the feast of Easter on the day chosen by
the Church of the West.”
Eusebius here agrees with S. Jerome; for he has® pre-
served to us a fragment of a letter written by Polycarp from
1 Hist. Eccl. v. 16.
2 Cf, the author’s treatise on the Easter controversy in the Preiburger Kirchen-
lexicon, Bd. vii. S. 874, where the question is considered more carefully. The
fullest examination will be given, however, under the history of the Nicene
Council.
3 Hist. Eccl. v. 24.
SYNODS CONCERNING THE FEAST OF EASTER. 81.
Ephesus, in which this bishop says that Victor had required
him to assemble the bishops who were subordinate to him :
that he had done so, but that he and all the bishops present
at this synod had pronounced for the practice of the Quarto-
decimans or of S. John; that these bishops, the number of
whom was considerable, had approved of the synodical letter
which he had drawn up, and that he had no fear (on account
of the threats of Victor), “because we must obey God rather
than man.” We sce from this fragment, that at the moment
when the synods convoked at the request of Victor in Pales-
tine pronounced in favour of the Western practice in Pales-
tine, Pontus, Gaul, and Osrhoéne, a great synod of bishops
from Asia Minor, held at Ephesus, the see of Polycarp, had
formally declared against this practice; and it is precisely
from the synodical letter of this council that we have the
fragment given above.
Bishop Victor then wished to exclude the bishops of Asia
Minor from the communion of the Church; but other bishops
turned him from his purpose. S. Irenzus, in particular, ad-
dressed a letter to him on this occasion, in the name of the
bishops of Gaul, over whom he presided ; a letter in which, it
is true, he defended the Western custom of celebrating Easter,
but in which also he prayed Victor not to excommunicate “a
great number of churches, who were only guilty of observing an
ancient custom,” etc. This fragment has also been preserved to
us by Eusebius ; and we may consider it as a part of the synodi-
cal letter of the bishops of Gaul, since, as Eusebius makes him
remark, Irenzeus expressly declared “ that he wrote in the name
of his brethren of Gaul, over whom he presided.” It may be
asked if the synod here spoken of is the same as that men-
tioned by Eusebius in another place,’ and which we mentioned
above. If it be the same, it must be admitted that, at the re-
quest of Victor, there was at first a synod of the Quartodeci-
mans in Asia Minor, and that it was only later on, when the
result was known, that other councils were also assembled, and
especially in Gaul. It may be also that S. Irenzeus presided
over two successive councils in Gaul, and that in the first he
declared himself for the Western practice regarding Easter, im
*y. 23.
F
$2. HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. © ᾿ς
the second against the threatening schism. This is the
opinion of the latest biographer of 8. Irenzeus, the Abbé J.
M. Prat.’ The Synodicon (Libellus Synodicus) only speaks of
one synod in Gaul, presided over by Irenzus, on the subject
of the Easter controversy ; and he adds that this synod was
composed of Irenzeus and of thirteen other bishops.
The JLibellus Synodicus also gives information about the
other councils of which Eusebius speaks, concerning the ques-
tion of Easter? Thus:
a. From the writing of the priests of Rome of which we
have spoken, and which was signed by Pope Victor, the
Libellus Synodicus concludes, as also does Valesius in his
translation ot the Zccles, Hist. of Eusebius,’ that there must
have been a Roman synod at which, besides Victor, fourteen
other bishops were present. ‘This is opposed by Dom Con-
stant in his excellent edition of the Lpistole Ponitif. p. 94,
and after him by Mosheim in his book De Rebus Christianorum
ante Constant. M. p. 267, who remarks that Eusebius speaks of
a letter from the Roman priests and Pope Victor, and not of
a synod, But it has often happened, especially in the follow-
ing centuries, that the decrees of the synods, and in particular
of the Roman synods, have only been signed by the president,
and have been promulgated by him under the form of an
edict emanating from him alone. This is what is expressly
said by a Roman synod held by Pope Felix 1. in 485.4
b. According to the Synodicon, two synods were held in
Palestine, on the subject of the Easter controversy: the one
at Jerusalem, presided over by Narcissus, and composed of
fourteen bishops; and the other at Ceesarea, comprising twelve
bishops, and presided over by Theophilus.
c. Fourteen bishops were present at the Asiatic Synod of
Pontus, under the presidency of Bishop Palmas, whom the
Synodicon calls Plasmas.
d. Eighteen bishops were present at that of Osrhotne ; the
Libellus Synodicus does not mention who presided.
1 Translated into German by Oischinger, Regensburg 1846.
2 In Hard. l.c. v. 1494 sq. ; Mansi, lc. i. 725 sq. sy. 23,
4 Mansi, vii. 1140; Hard. iii. 856. Cf. the observations of Ballerini, Opera
S, Leonis M. ili. 933, note 30.
DOUBTFUL SYNODS OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 83
e: It-speaks also οὔ" ἃ synod held in Mesopotamia, on the
_ subject of Easter, which also counted eighteen bishops (it is
probably the same synod as that of Osrhoéne). )
J; And, lastly, of a synod at Corinth, presided over by
Bishop Bacchyllus ; whilst Eusebius! says expressly that Bac-
chyllus of Corinth did not publish any synodical letter on the
subject of the celebration of Easter, but simply a private letter,
SEC. 3. Doubtful Synods of the Second Century.
The anonymous author of the Predestinatus speaks of three
other synods of the second century. According to him,
a. In A.D. 125 a synod was held of all the bishops of
Sicily, presided over by Eustathius of Libybeum and Theo-
dorus of Palermo. This synod considered the cause of the
Guostic Heraclionites, and sent its acts to Pope Alexander,
that he might decide further in the matter?
6. In 152 the heresy of the Colarbasians, another Gnostic
sect, was anathematized by Theodotus Bishop of Pergamum
in Mysia, and by seven other bishops assembled in synod?
ce. In 160 an Eastern synod rejected the heresy. of the
Gnostic Cerdo.4 : |
The Libellus Synodicus mentions, besides :
a. A synod held at Rome, under Pope Telesphorus (127--
139), against the currier Theodotus, the anti-Trinitarian.
ὃ. A second synod at Rome, held under Pope Anicetus,
upon the Easter question, at the time when Polycarp Bishop
of Smyrna visited the Pope. ᾿ ,
, ὦ A third Roman synod under Victor, and which con-
demned Theodotus, Ebion, and Artemon.
d. A fourth Roman synod, also held under Victor, and
which anathematized Sabellius and Noitus.
6, Finally, a synod of the confessors of Gaul, who declared
against Montanus and Maximilla in a letter addressed to the
Asiatics.°
Ἐν 25.
* Mansi, Uc. 1. 647. Cf. Mansi’s note on the small confidence we must here
place in Predestinatus.
3 Mansi, Lc. p. 670. 4 Mansi, 1.6. p. 682,
Hard. Le. vy. 1491 sq. ; Mansi, Le. i. 662, 686, 725 sq, )
84 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
These eight synods mentioned by the author of Predcsti-
natus and by the Libellus Synodicus are apparently imaginary :
for, on one side, there is not a single ancient and original
document which speaks of them; and on the other, the state-
ments of these two unknown authors are either unlikely or
contrary to chronology. We will instance, for example, the
pretended Roman synod, presided over by Victor, which
anathematized Sabellius. In admitting that the usual date,
according to which Sabellius would have lived a full half-
century later (about 250), may be inexact, as the Philoso-
phoumena recently discovered have proved, yet it is clear from
this document that Sabellius had not yet been excluded
from the Church under Pope Zephyrinus (202-218), the suc-
cessor of Victor, and that he was not excommunicated until
the time of Pope Calixtus.’
It is also impossible that Theodotus the currier should
have been condemned by a Roman synod held under Teles-
phorus, since Theodotus lived towards the close of the second
century. It is the same with the pretended Sicilian Council
in 125. According to the information afforded to us by
the ancients, especially 8. Irenzeus and Tertullian, Heracleon
changed the system of Valentine. He could not then have
flourished till after 125. As to Pope Alexander, to whom
this synod is said to have rendered an account of its acts im
125, he died a martyr in 119.
It is also by mistake that we have been told of a synod
in which Pope Anicetus and Polycarp both took part. The
interview of these two bishops has been confounded with a
synod: it is the same with the pretended Synod of Gaul,
held against Montanus.
The author of the Libellus Synodicus has evidently mis-
understood Eusebius, who says on this subject :* “ The news
of what had taken place in Asia* on the subject of Montanus
(the synod) was known to the Christians of Gaul. The latter
were at that time cruelly persecuted by Marcus Aurelius ;
many of them were in prison. They, however, gave their
opinion from their prison on the matter of Montanus, and
1 Cf. Dillinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, S. 198 ff. 2 See above, p. 80.
® THist. Eccles. v. 3. 4 See above, p. 78.
DOUBTFUL SYNODS OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 85
addressed letters to their brethren of Asia, and to Eleutherus
Bishop of Rome.”* It will be seen that the question here is
not of a synod, but of letters written by confessors (the Lrbellus
Synodicus also mentions confessors).
Finally, a ninth council, which is said to have conveyed to
the Bishop of Seleucia a patriarchal right over the whole of
Assyria, Media, and Persia, is evidently an invention ; and
the mention of a Patriarchate on this occasion 1s a patent
anachronism, as has been proved by Assemani in his Biblio-
thique Orientale.?
1 Cf. the dissertation of the author, der Montanismus, in the Freiburger
Kirchenlezicon, Bd. vii. S. 2538.
3 τ, iii, ; and Mansi, Collect. Cone. i. 708,
CHAPTER Il
THE SYNODS OF THE THIRD CENTURY,
SEC. 4. First Half of the Third Century.
+ hee series of synods of the third century opens with that
of Carthage, to which Agrippinus bishop of that city
had called the bishops of Numidia and of proconsular Africa.
8. Cyprian speaks of this Synod in his seventy-first and
seventy-third letters, saying that all the bishops present de-
clared baptism administered by heretics to be void; and he
supports his own view on this subject by what had passed in
this ancient Synod of Carthage." This Synod was probably
the most ancient of Latin Africa; for Tertullian? who recalls
the Greek synods as a glory, tells not of one single council
being held in his country. According to Uhlhorn® it was
about 205, according to Hesselburg about 212, that the work
of Tertullian, de Jejwniis, was composed ; therefore the Synod
in question must have been held either after 205 or after
212. It has not been possible up to this time to verify this
date more exactly. But the newly-discovered φιλοσοφούμενα,
falsely attributed to Origen, and which were probably written
by Hippolytus, have given more exact dates; and Dollinger,
relying upon this document, has placed the date of this Synod
of Carthage between 218 and 222. The Philosophowmena
relate, indeed, that the custom of re-baptizing—that is to say,
of repeating the baptism of those who had been baptized by
1 Cypriani Opp. ed. Ben. Par. 1726, pp. 127, 180; Mansi, i. 734. Cf. on this.
Synod, Aug. de bap. contra Donatist. lib. ii. c. 7, where their conclusions are
found fault with.
2 De Jejun. c. 12. Cf. Mosh. Commentar. de rebus Christ. ante Const. M.
p. 264.
3 Fundamenta Chronologie Tertullian, 1852, p. 65 sq.
4 Déllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853, S. 189 f,
&6
SYNODS OF FIRST HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 8:7,
heretics—was introduced under the Bishop of Rome, Callistus
(in some churches in communion with him). One can
scarcely doubt but that this passage referred to Bishop Agrip-
pinus and his Synod at Carthage; for S. Augustine and
S. Vincent of Lérins' say expressly that Agrippinus was the
first who introduced the custom of re-baptism. The Synod of
, Carthage, then, took place in the time of Pope Callistus 1, that
is to say, between 218 and 222... This date agrees with the
well-known fact that Tertullian was the first of all Christian:
writers who declared the baptism of heretics invalid; and it
may be presumed that his book de Baptismo exerted a certain
influence upon the conclusions of the Council of Carthage.*
It is not contradicted by the forty-sixth (forty-seventh) apos-:
tolic canon, which orders bishops, under pain of deposition,
to re-baptize those who had been baptized by a heretic; for it.
is known that these so-called apostolic canons were composed:
some centuries later.
S. Cyprian speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of a synod hela
long before (jampridem) in Africa, and which had decided
that a clergyman could not be chosen by a dying person as a
cuardian ;* but nothing shows that he understood by that, the.
synod presided over by Agrippinus, or a second African council.
’ The ercat Origen gave occasion for two. synods at Alex-
andria. About the year 228, being called into Achaia on
account of the religious troubles reigning there, Origen passed
through Palestine, and was ordained priest at Caesarea by his
friends Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem and Theoctistus
Bishop of Csésarea, although there were two reasons for his
non-admission to holy orders: first, that he belonged to
another diocese ; and secondly, that he had castrated himself.
It is not known what decided him or the bishops of Palestine
to take this uncanonical step. Demetrius of Alexandria,
diocesan bishop of Origen, was very angry with what had
been done; and if we regard it from the ecclesiastical point of
1 Aug. Δ δ.) Vincent. Lirin. c. 9, p. 114, ed. Kliipfel.
2 Pagi, Critica in Annales Baronii, t. i. ad ann. 219, n. ii, 222, n. iv. and:
224, n. ii. p. 206 sq.
' 3 Dollinger, Uc. 8. 191.
4 Cypriani Opp. l.c. p. 114; : αὐ τῳ: Le. p. 735.
δ Euseb. IZist. Eccl. vi. 23.
88 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
view, he was right. When Origen returned to Alexandria,
Demetrius told him of his displeasure, and reproached him
with his voluntary mutilation.” But the principal grievance,
without doubt, had reference to several false doctrines held by
Origen: for he had then already written his book de Principiis
and his Stromata, which contain those errors;? and it is not
necessary to attribute to the Bishop of Alexandria personal |
feelings of hatred and jealousy in order to understand that he
should have ordered an inquiry into Origen’s opinions under
the circumstances. Origen hastened to leave Alexandria of his
own accord, according to Eusebius ;* whilst Epiphanius‘ says,
erroneously, that Origen fled because, shortly before, he had
shown much weakness during a persecution. His bitterest
enemies have never cast a reproach of this nature at him.
Demetrius, however, assembled a synod of Egyptian bishops
and priests of Alexandria in 231, who declared Origen
anworthy to teach, and excluded him from the Church of
Alexandria. Demetrius again presided over a second synod
-at Alexandria, without this time calling his priests, and Origen
was declared to be deprived of the sacerdotal dignity. An
-encyclical letter published by Demetrius made these resolu-
‘tions known in all the provinces.®
According to S. Jerome and Rufinus, a Roman assembly,
‘probably called under Pope Pontian, shortly after deliberated
‘upon this judgment; and Origen after that sent to Pope
‘Fabian (236—250) a profession of faith, to explain and retract
his errors.° Several writers have thought that the word
-senatus must not be understood in the sense of a synod,
and that we are to consider it only as an assembly of the
Roman clergy. Déollinger, on the contrary, presumes that
Origen had taken part in the discussions of the priest Hip-
polytus with Pope Callistus and his successors (Origen had
learned to know Hippolytus at Rome, and he partly agreed
1 Euseb. lc. vi. 8. 2 Euseb. 1.6. vi. 24. * vi. 26. 4 Heres. 64. 2.
5 Photii Biblioth. cod. 118; and Hieron. lib. ii. in Rufin. c. 5. Cf. Hefele’s
discussion on Origen in the Freiburger Kirchenlex. of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. vii.
S. 829. [A French translation is edited by Goéschler. ]
6 Hieron. Ep. ad Pammochium et Oceanum, n. 84 (al. 65 seu 41), $10, p. 751,
t. ied. Migue. Further: Rufinus, lib. 11. in Hieron. ἢ. 20 ; in Migne, p. 600,
t. xxi. of his Cursus Patrol. ; in the Bened, ed. of S, Jerome, t, iv. pt. il. p. 490,
SYNODS OF FIRST HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 89
with his opinions), and that for this reason Pontian had held
a synod against Origen.
A little before this period, and before the accession of Pope
Fabian, a synod was certainly held at Iconium in Asia Minor,
which must have been of great authority in the controversy
which was soon to begin on the subject of the baptism of
heretics. Like the Synod of Carthage, presided over by Agrip-
pinus, that of Iconium declared every baptism conferred by a
heretic to be invalid. The best information upon this Council
has been furnished us by the letter which Bishop Firmilian
of Czsarea in Cappadocia, who showed himself so active in
this controversy, addressed to S. Cyprian.” It says: “ Some
having raised doubts upon the validity of baptism conferred by
heretics, we decided long ago, in the Council held at Iconium
in Phrygia, with the Bishops of Galatia, Cilicia, and the other
neighbouring provinces, that the ancient practice against
heretics should be maintained and held firm (not to regard
baptism conferred by them).”* Towards the end of the letter
we read; “ Among us, as more than one Church has never
been recognised, so also have we never recognised as holy any
but the baptism of that Church. Some having had doubts
upon the validity of baptism conferred by those who receive
new prophets (the Montanists), but who, however, appear to
adore the same Father and the same Son as ourselves, we
have assembled in great number at Iconium: we have very
carefully examined the question (diligentissime tractavimus),
and we have decided that all baptism administered outside
the Church must be rejected.” This letter then speaks of
the Council of Iconium as of a fact already old ; and it says
also, that it was occasioned by the question of the validity
of baptism administered by Montanists. Now, as Firmilian
wrote this letter about the middle of the third century, it
follows that the Council of Iconium, of which he often speaks
as of an ancient assembly held long before (jampridem), took
place about twenty years before the writing of his letter
Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third:
century, also says: “It is not the Africans (Cyprian) who
1 Dollinger, 1.6. S. 260. 2 Cyp. Epp. n. 75.
3 Cyp. Opp. ed. Benedict., Paris 1726, p. 145 ; Mansi, /.c. p, 914.
90 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
have introduced the custom of re-baptizing heretics: this
measure had been taken long before Cyprian (πρὸ πολλοῦν,
by other bishops at the Synod of Iconium and of Synnada.”?
In these two passages of his letter to 8S. Cyprian, Firmilian
gives us a fresh means of fixing the date of the Synod of
Iconium, saying formally several times: “ We assembled our-
selves at Iconium ; we have examined the question ; we have
decreed,” etc. It results from this, that he was himself pre-
sent at this Synod. On the other side, the jampridem and
other similar expressions justify us in placing this Synod
in the first years of Firmilian’s episcopate. Now we know
from Eusebius’ that Firmilian flourished so early as in thé
time of the Emperor Alexander Severus (222—235) as Bishop
of Cesarea; so that we can, with Valesius and Pagi, place the
celebration of the Synod of Iconium in the years 230-2353
Baronius, by a very evident error, assigns it to the year 258.
According to all probability, we must refer to the Synod
of Iconium a short passage of 5. Augustine, in the third
chapter of his third book against Cresconius, in which he
speaks of a synod composed of fifty Eastern bishops.
Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, speaks,! we
have seen, not only of the Synod of Iconium, but also of a
Synod of Synnada, a town also situated in Phrygia. In this
Synod, he says, the baptism by heretics was also rejected.
We may conclude from his words that the two assemblies
took place about the same time. We have no other informa-
tion on this subject.’ . ἰ
We know very little about the conctlium Lambesitanum,
which, says S. Cyprian, in his fifty-fifth letter to Pope Cor-
nelius,” had been held long before in the Lambesitana Colonia
(in Numidia) by ninety bishops, and condemned a heretic
1 Frag. of a letter of Dionysius to the Roman priest Philemon, in Euseb.
ITist. Eccl. vii. 7.
2 Hist. Eccl. vi. 26. .
3 Valesius in his remarks on Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vii. 7 ; Pagi, Critica in
Annales Baronii, ad ann. 255, ἢ. 16 ; cf. Dillinger, Hippolyt, 8. 191 f.
. *Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 7.
ὅ Dollinger thinks (Hippolyt, 5. 191) this Synod was almost δά μῆνα,
raneous Ww ith that of Carthage under Agrippinus (between 218 and 222).
8 Cyp. Opp. Le. p. 84.
SYNODS OF FIRST HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 01
named Privatus (probably Bishop of Lambese) as guilty of
several grave offences.” The Roman priests also mention this
Privatus in their letter to S. Cyprian ;1 but they do not give
any further information concerning him.
A better known council was that which was held about
the year 244, at Bostra in Arabia Petreea (now Bosrah and
Bosserat), on account of the errors of Beryllus, bishop of this
town. It is known that Beryllus belonged to the party of
the Monarchians, generally called Patripassianists. This
bishop held other erroneous opinions, which were peculiar to
himself, and which it is now very difficult to distingvish.?
The attempt made by the Arabian bishops to bring back
Beryllus from his errors having failed, they called in Origen
to their aid, who then lived at Caesarea in Palestine.® Origen
came and conversed with Beryllus, first in private, then in
presence of the bishops. The document containing the dis-
cussion was known to Eusebius and S. Jerome; but it was
afterwards lost. Beryllus returned to the orthodox docirine,
and later expressed, it is said, his gratitude to Origen ina
private letter.‘ 7
_ Another controversy was raised in Arabia about the soul,
as to whether it passed away (fell asleep) with the body, to
rise (awake) at the resurrection of the body. At the request
of one of the great Arabian synods, as Eusebius remarks,
Origen had to argue against these Hypnopsychites, and he
was as successful as in the affair of Beryllus.® The Libellus
Synodicus adds® that fourteen bishops were present at the
Synod, but it does not mention, any more than Eusebius, the
place where it was held.
About the same period must also have been held two
1 Ν, 80, Cyp. Opp. Le. p. 41, and Ep. 55, p. 84. Cf. Walch, Ketzerh. (Hist.
of Heretics), Bd. ii. S. 181 ff.
* Cf. on this subject, Ullmann, De Beryllo Bostreno ejusque doctrina Com-
mentatio, 1835; Kober, Beryll von Bostra, eine dogmenh. Untersuchung, in the
Tiibing. theol. Quartalschrift, 1848, Heft 1; and Dorner, Lehre von der
Person Christi, 2 Aufl. Bd. i. 5, 545 ff. [Eng. transl. published by Clark of
Edinburgh].
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 33.
* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 33; Hieron. in Catalog. Script. Eccl. c. 60. The
Libellus Synodicus refers also to this Synod, but very barely and inaccurately.
5 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 37. 6 In Mansi, U.c. i. 790 ; Hard. v. 1495.
92 : HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Asiatic synods, on the subject of the anti-Trinitarian (Patri-
passian) Noetus; S. Epiphanius is the only one to mention
them, and he does so without giving any detail, and without
saying where they took place.’ The assertion of the author
of Predestinatus? that about this time a synod was held in
Achaia against the Valesians, who taught voluntary mutila-
tion,® is still more doubtful, and very probably false. The
very existence of this sect is doubtful.
We are on more solid historical ground when we approach
the tolerably numerous synods which were celebrated, chiefly
in Africa, about the middle of the third century. The letters
of S. Cyprian especially acquaint us with them. He first
speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of an assembly of his col-
leagues (the bishops of Africa), and of his fellow-priests (the
presbyters of Carthage), and so of a Carthaginian * Synod,
which had to decide upon a particular case of ecclesiastical
discipline. A Christian named Geminius Victor, of Furni
in Africa, had on the approach of death appointed a priest
named Geminius Faustinus as guardian to his children. We
have seen above, that an ancient synod of Africa, perhaps
that held under Agrippinus, had forbidden that a priest
should be a guardian, because a clergyman ought not to
occupy himself with such temporal business. The Synod of
Carthage, held under S. Cyprian, renewed this prohibition,
and ordained, in the spirit of that ancient council, that no
prayers should be said or sacrifices (oblationes) offered for the
deceased Victor, as he had no claim to the prayers of priests
who had endeavoured to take a priest from the holy altar.
Tn the letter of which we speak, 8. Cyprian gave an account
of this decision to the Christians of Furni.2 The Benedictines
of Saint Maur® presume that this letter was written before
the outbreak of the persecution of Decius, which would place
this Synod in the year 249.
1 Epiphan. Heres. 57, ¢. 1. Cf. Mansi, 1.6. p. 790.
2 Lib. i. Ὁ. 37. 3 Mansi, l.c. p. 790.
* Mansi and the other collectors of the acts of councils have overlocked this
Synod.
> Cypriani Zp. 66, p. 114, ed. Bened.
6 In their Life of S. Cyprian, n. iv. p. xlvi. ed. Bened.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO NOVATIANISM, ETC. 93
Sec. 5. First Synods at Carthage and Rome on account of
Novatianism and the “ Lapsi” (251).
The schism of Felicissimus and the Novatian controversy
soon afterwards occasioned several synods. When, in 248, 8.
Cyprian was elected Bishop of Carthage, there was a small
party of malcontents there, composed of five priests, of whom
he speaks himself in his fortieth letter. Soon after the com-
mencement of the persecution of Decius (at the beginning of
the year 250) the opposition to Cyprian became more violent,
because in the interest of the discipline of the Church he
would not always regard the letters of peace which some
martyrs without sufficient consideration gave to the lapsi.*
He was accused of exaggerated severity against the fallen,
and his own absence (from February 250 until the month of
April or May 251) served to strengthen the party which was
formed against him. An accident caused the schism to break
out. Cyprian had from his retreat sent two bishops and two
priests to Carthage, to distribute help to the faithful poor
(many had been ruined by the persecution). The deacom
_ Felicissimus opposed the envoys of Cyprian, perhaps because
he considered the care of the poor as an exclusive right of
the deacons, and because he would not tolerate special commis-
sioners from the bishop on such a business. This took place
at the end of 250, or at the beginning of 251. Frelicissimus
had been ordained deacon by the priest Novatus unknown to
Cyprian, and without his permission, probably during his re-
treat. Now, besides the fact that such an ordination was con-
trary to all the canons of the Church, Felicissimus was personally
unworthy of any ecclesiastical office, on account of his deceit-
fulness and his corrupt manners.” Cyprian, being warned by
his commissioners, excommunicated Felicissimus and some of
his partisans on account of their disobedience ;? but the
signal for revolt was given, and Felicissimus soon had with
him those five priests who had been the old adversaries of
Cyprian, as well as all those who accused the bishop of being
1 Cf. Cypriani Epist. 14.
2 Cf. Cyp. Epp. 49, 37, 35; and Walch, Ketzerh. Bd. ii. 8. 296.
3 Ep. 38.
94 “ .~ ~ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS:
too severe with regard to the Japsi, and of despising the
letters of the martyrs. These contributed to give to the
opposition quite another character. Till then it had only
been composed of some disobedient priests; henceforth the
party took for a war-cry the severity of the bishop with re-
gard to the lapsi. Thus not only the lapst, but also some con-
tessors (confessores) who had been hurt by the little regard that
Cyprian showed for the libelli pacis, swelled the ranks of the
revolt. It is not known whether Novatus was in the num-
ber of the five priests who were the first movers of the party.
By some it is asserted, by others denied. After having in
vain recalled the rebels to obedience,? Cyprian returned to
Carthage, a year after the festival of Easter in 251;? and he
wrote his book de Lapsis as a preparation for the Synod which
he assembled soon afterwards, probably during the month of
May 2561... The Council was composed of a great number of
bishops,’ and of some priests and deacons:® he excommuni-
cated Felicissimus and the five priests after having heard
them,’ and at the same time set forth the principles to be
followed with regard to the lapsi, after having carefully exa-
mined the passages of Scripture treatirig of this question.®
All the separate decrees upon this subject were collected into
one book,’ which may be considered as the first penitential
book which had appeared in the Church; but unfortunately
it is lost. Cyprian makes us acquainted with the principal
rules in his fifty-second letter: namely, that all hope must not
be taken away from the lapsed, that, in excluding them from
the Church, they may not be driven to abandon the faith, and
‘to fall back again into a life of heathenism ; that, notwith-
standing, a long penance must be imposed upon them, and
that they must be punished proportionally to their fault2® It
is evident, continues Cyprian, that one must act differently
with those who have gone, so to speak, to meet apostasy,
1 Walch, le. 5. 305. 2 Walch, lc. S. 299.
3 Cypr. Hp. 40, p. 55, ed. Bened.
* Cypr. Ep. 40, p. 55; Hp. 52, p. 67. Cf. the Vita Cypriani by Prudentius
Maran, N. xviii. ; same ed. p. Ixxx.
5 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67. 6 Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 87.
7 Cypr. Ep. 42, p. 57; Ep. ὅδ, pp. 79, 83;°. ΝἘἐἀὨἁ 8 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67.
9 Cyprian speaks of this in his Hp. 52, p. 67. 10 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO NOVATIANISM, ETC. (95
spontaneously taking part in the impious sacrifices, and those
who have been, as it were, forced to this odious sacrilege after
long struggles and cruel sufferings: so also with those who
have carried with them in their crime their wife, their
children, their servants, their friends, making them also share
their fall, and those who have only been the victims, who
have sacrificed to the gods in order to serve their families
and their houses; that there should no less be a difference
between the sacrificati and the libellatict, that is to say, be-
tween those who had really sacrificed to the gods, and those
who, without making a formal act of apostasy, had profited by
the weakness of the Roman functionaries, had seduced them,
and had made them give them false attestations; that the
libellatict must be reconciled immediately, but that the sacri-
jicati must submit to a long penance, and only be reconciled
as the moment of their death approached ;’ finally, that as
for the bishops and priests, they must also be admitted to
penance, but not again permitted to discharge any episcopal
or sacerdotal * function.
Jovinus and Maximus, two bishops of the party of Felicis-
simus, who had been reproved before by nine bishops for
having sacrificed to the gods, and for having committed
abominable sacrilege, appeared before the Synod of Carthage.
The Synod renewed the sentence originally given against
them; but in spite of this decree, they dared again to present
themselves, with several of their partisans, at the Synod of
Carthage, held the following year.*
Cyprian and the bishops assembled around him decided to
send their synodical decisions of 251 to Rome, to Pope Cor-
nelius, to obtain his consent with regard to the measures
taken against the lapsi.* It was the more necessary to under-
stand each other on the subject of these measures, as the
Roman Church had also been troubled by the Novatian schism.
Pope Cornelius assembled at Rome in the autumn—~probably
1 Cypr. Ep. 52, pp. 69, 70, 71.
3 Cypr. Zp. 68, pp. 119, 120.
* Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 84. Cf. Walch, 1.0. Bd. ii. S. 308.
* Cypr. Ep. 52, pp. 67, 68.
5. Cf. Hefele’s art. on this subject in the Kirchenlex. Bd. vii. S. 358 ff.
96 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
in the month of October 251'—a synod composed of sixty
bishops, without counting the priests and deacons. The
Synod confirmed the decrees of that of Carthage, and excom-
municated Novatian and his partisans. The two authors who
have preserved these facts for us are Cyprian? and Eusebius.*
It must be remarked that several editors of the acts of the
councils, and several historians, misunderstanding the original
documents, have turned the two Synods of Carthage and
Rome (251) into four councils* The Libellus Synodicus also
speaks of another council which must have been held the
same year at Antioch, again on the subject of the Novatians;
but one can hardly rely on the Libellus Synodicus when it is
alone in relating a fact.’
The Novatian schism could not be extirpated by these
synods. The partisans of Felicissimus and of Novatian made
great efforts to recover their position. The Novatians of
Carthage even succeeded in putting at their head a bishop of
their party named Maximus, and they sent many complaints to
Rome on the subject of Cyprian’s pretended severity, as, on the
other side, the persecution which was threatening made fresh
measures necessary with regard to the laps. Cyprian assembled
a fresh council at Carthage on the Ides of May 252, which
sixty-six bishops attended.® It was probably at this council
that two points were discussed which were brought forward
by the African Bishop Fidus.” Fidus complained at first that
Therapius Bishop of Bulla (near Hippo) had received the
priest Victor too soon into the communion of the Church, and
without having first imposed upon him the penance he de-
served. The Synod declared that it was evidently contrary
to the former decisions of the councils, but that they would
* Cf. the Vita Cypriani in the Benedict. ed. p. xcii. 2 Ep. 52.
° Hist. Eccl. vi. 43, pp. 242, 245, ed. Mog.
4Cf. Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir ἃ Uhistoire ecclés. t. iii, art. vili., sur
S. Corneille, etc., not. v. pp. 197, 348, ed. Brax. 1732. Cf. also Walch, Hist.
Kirchenvers. 8. 102, An. 1.
ἢ Mansi, i. 867, 871; Hard. v. 1498; Walch, Jc. S. 103.
ὁ Cypr. Ep. 59, p. 97, and Ep. 55, p. 84.
7 Tillemont, l.c. t. iv. p. 46, art. 30, sur 5. Cyprien; Remi Ceillier, Hist.
générale des auteurs sacrés, t. iii. pp. 585, 588,—have shown that these were not
two councils ; whilst Prudentius Maran, in the Vita S. Cypriani, Ῥω xcviil.,
holds for two councils.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO NOVATIANISM, ETC, 97
content themselves for this time with blaming Bishup Thera-
plus, without declaring invalid the reconciliation of the priest
Victor, which he had effected. In the second place, Fidus
enunciated the opinion that infants should be baptized, not in
the first days after their birth, but eight days after; to observe,
with regard to baptism, the delay formerly prescribed for
circumcision. The Synod unanimously condemned this opinion,
declaring that they could not thus delay to confer grace on
the new-born. |
The next principal business of the Synod was that concerning
the dapsi; and the fifty-fourth letter of S. Cyprian gives us
an account of what passed on this subject. The Synod, he
says, on this subject decided that, considering the imminent
persecution, they might immediately reconcile all those who
showed signs of repentance, in order to prepare them for the
battle by means of the holy sacraments: Jdoneus esse non potest
ad martyrium qui ab Ecclesia non armatur ad pretium? In
addressing its synodical letter to Pope Cornelius (it is the
fifty-fourth of S. Cyprian’s letters), the Council says formally :
Placuit nobis, sancto Spiritu suggerente® The heretic Privatus,
of the colonia Lambesitana, probably bishop of that town, who,
as we have seen, had been condemned, again appeared at the
Council; but he was not admitted. Neither would they admit
Bishops Jovinus and Maximus, partisans of F elicissimus, and
condemned as he was; nor the false Bishop Felix, consecrated
by Privatus after he became a heretic, who came with him.
They then united themselves with the fallen bishop Repostus
Saturnicensis,* who had _ sacrificed during the persecution, and
they gave the priest Fortunatus as bishop to the lax party at
Carthage. He had been one of 5. Cyprian’s five original
adversaries.
' Cypriani Ep. 59, ad Fidum, p. 97 ss.
5 Cypriani Ep. 54, p. 78. Routh has reprinted and commented upon this
letter of S. Cyprian’s, Reliquie sacre, iii. 69 sqq-, 108 sqq. This work also con-
tains the acts of all the other synods held by S. Cyprian, accompanied with a
commentary.
* Cypr. Ep. 54, p, 79 sqq. Cf. on this Council, Vita 8. Cypriani, in the
Bened. ed. p. χοῖν.
_ “The reading is here uncertain. Cf the notes in the Bened. edition of
8. Cyprian, p. 457. δὲν
δ Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 84. Cf. Vita Cypriani, p. xcvi.
G
98 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
A short time after, a new synod assembled at Carthage on
the subject of the Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides.
Both had been deposed for serious faults, especially for having
denied the faith. Basilides had judged himself to be unworthy
of the episcopal dignity, and declared himself satisfied if,
after undergoing his penance, he might be received into lay
communion. Martial had also confessed his fault; but after
some time they both appealed to Rome, and by means of
false accounts they succeeded in gaining over Pope Stephen,
who demanded that Basilides should be replaced in his
bishopric, although Sabinus had been already elected to suc-
ceed him. Several Spanish bishops seem to have supported
the pretensions of Basilides and Martial, and placed them-
selves, it appears, on their side; but the Churches of Leon, of
Asturia, and of Emerita, wrote on this subject to the African
bishops, and sent two deputies to them—Bishops Sabinus
and Felix, probably the elected successors of Basilides and
Martial. Felix Bishop of Saragossa supported them with
a private letter. §. Cyprian then assembled a council com-
posed of thirty-seven bishops; and we possess the synodical
letter of the assembly, in his sixty-eighth epistle, in which the
deposition of Martial and Basilides is confirmed, the election
of their successors is declared to be legitimate and regular,
the bishops who had spoken in favour of the deposed bishops
are censured, and the people are instructed to enter into
ecclesiastical communion with their successors.” ;
Src. 6. Synods relative to the Baptism of Heretics (255-256).
To these synods concerning the Japsi, succeeded three
African councils on the subject of baptism by heretics. We
have seen that three former councils—that of Carthage, pre-
sided over by Agrippinus; two of Asia Minor, that of Ico-
nium, presided over by Firmilian, and that of Synnada, held
αὖ the same period—had declared that baptism conferred by
heretics was invalid. This principle, and the consequent prac-
tice in Asia Minor, would appear’to ‘have occasioned, towards
the end of the year.253, a conflict between Pope Stepheu and
the bishops of Asia Minor, Helenus of Tarsus and. Firmilian
"1. Gypr. Ep. 68, p. 117-84. ..Ὁ σ΄ |
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS, 99
of Cvsarea, sustained by all the bishops of Cilicia, of Cappa-
docia, and the neighbouring provinces ; so that Stephen, accord-
ing to Dionysius the Great threatened these bishops with
excommunication because they repeated the baptism conferred
by heretics. Dionysius the Great mediated with the Pope in
favour of the bishops of Asia Minor; and the letter which
he wrote prevented their being excluded from the Church2
The first sentence of this letter would even allow it to be sup-
posed that peace was completely re-established, and that the
bishops of Asia Minor had conformed to the demand of the
Pope. However, later on, Firmilian is again found in opposi-
tion to Rome,
The Easterns then stirred up the controversy on the baptism
of heretics before S. Cyprian; and when Eusebius says, πρῶτος
τῶν τότε Κυπριανός, κιτιλ., this passage must be thus under-
stood: Cyprian was the most important, and in this sense the
first, of those who demanded the re-baptism of heretics.
Let us now turn our attention to Africa, and particularly
to 8. Cyprian. Some African bishops being of the opinion
that those who abandoned heretical sects to enter the Church
must not be re-baptized,’ eighteen bishops of Numidia, who
held a different opinion, and rejected baptism by heretics,
asked of the Synod of Carthage of 255° if it were neces-
sary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics
or schismatics, when they entered the Church’? At this
Synod, presided over by S. Cyprian, there were twenty-one
bishops present ὃ the seventieth epistle of Cyprian is nothing
1In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 5.
* Eusebius has preserved a fragment of this letter, Hist. Eccles. vii. 5. This
fragment implies that the letter contained more than Eusebius has preserved of
it, especially a prayer in favour of the bishops of Asia Minor. Cf. the words
of another letter of Dionysius: de his omnibus ego ad illum (Stephanum) epis-
tolam misi rogans atque obtestans (Euseb. 1.6.). Cf. on this point, Vita 8.
Cypriani, by Prudentius Maran, in the Bened. edition of S. Cyprian's works,
: Oke
3 Hist. Eccles. vii. 3. 4 Vita Cypriani, l.c. p. cxi.
5 Cypr. Zp. 71, p. 126.
6 This date is at least probable. Cf. Vita Cypriani, lc. p. cxi.
7 Cypr. Ep. 70, p. 124. ba
8 Their names, and those of the eighteen bishops of Numidia, are to be
found at the commencement of the seventieth epistle of Cyprian.
100 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
but the answer of the Synod to the eighteen Numidian
bishops. It declares “ that their opinion about the baptism
of heretics is perfectly right ; for no one can be baptized out
of the Church, seeing there is only one baptism which 15. in
the Church,” etc.
Shortly afterwards, Cyprian being again consulted on the
same question by Quintus, bishop in Mauritania, who sent
him the priest Lucian, sent in answer the synodical letter of
the Council which had just separated ; and besides, in a pri-
vate letter joined to this official document, he stated his per-
sonal opinion on the validity of the baptism of heretics, and
answered some objections.”
All the bishops of Africa were probably not satisfied with
these decisions;? and some time after, about 256, Cyprian saw
himself obliged to assemble a second and larger council at Car-
thage, at which no fewer than seventy-one bishops were present.
S. Cyprian relates’ that they treated of a multitude of questions,
but the chief point was the baptism of heretics. The synodical
letter of this great assembly, addressed to Pope Stephen, forms
S. Cyprian’s seventieth letter. The Council also sent to the
Pope the letter of the preceding Synod to the eighteen Nu-
midian bishops, as well as the letter of 5. Cyprian to Quintus,
and reiterated the assertion “ that whoso abandoned a sect
ought to be re-baptized ;” adding, “ that it was not sufficient
(parum est) to lay hands on ‘such converts ad accipiendwm
Spiritum sanctum, if they did not also receive the baptism of
the Church.” The same Synod decided that those priests and
deacons who had abandoned the catholic Church for any of
the sects, as well as those who had been ordained by the
sectarian false bishops, on re-entering the Church, could only
be admitted into lay communion (communio laicalis), At
the end of their letter, the Synod express the hope that
these decisions would obtain Stephen’s approval: they knew,
besides, they said, that many do not like to renounce an
1 Cypr. Zp. 71, p. 126 sq. :
2 «ἐ Nescio qua presumptione ducuntur quidam de collegis nostris, ut putent
eos, qui apud heereticos tincti sunt, quando ad nos venerint, baptizare non
oportere,” says 8. Cyprian in his seventy-first epistle to Quintus, consequently
after the Council of 255.
3 Ep. 72.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS, 101
opinion which has once been adopted; and more than one
bishop, without breaking with his colleagues, will doubtless
be tempted to persevere in the custom which he had embraced.
Besides this, it is not the intention of the Synod to do violence
to any one, or to prescribe a universal law, seeing that each
bishop can cause his will to be paramount in the administra-
tion of his Church, and will have to render an account of it to
God.! “ These words,’ Mattes has remarked,’ “ betray either
the desire which the bishops of Africa had to see Stephen
produce that agreement by his authority, which did not yet
exist, and which was not easy to establish ; or else their appre-
hensions, because they knew that there was a practice at Rome
which did not accord with the opinion of Cyprian.” This
last was, in:fact, the case; for Pope Stephen was so little
pleased with the decisions of the Council of Carthage, that he
did not allow the deputies of the African bishops to appear
before him, refused to communicate with them, forbade all the
faithful to receive them into their houses, and did not hesitate
to call 8. Cyprian a false Christian, a false apostle, a deceitful
workman (dolosus operarius). This is at least what Firmilian
relates.? Pope Stephen then pronounced very explicitly, in
opposition to the Africans, for the validity of the baptism of
heretics, and against the custom of repeating the baptism of
those who had already received it from heretics. The letter
which he wrote on this occasion to Cyprian has unfortunately
been lost, and therefore his complete argument is unknown to
us ; but Cyprian and Firmilian have preserved some passages
of the letter of Stephen in their writings, and it is these short
fragments, with the comments of Cyprian and Firmilian,‘
which must serve to make known to us with some certainty
the view of Stephen on the baptism of heretics.
It is commonly admitted that 8. Cyprian answered this
violence of Stephen’s by assembling the third Council of Car-
thage ; but it is also possible that. this assembly took place
1 Cypriani Lp. 72, p.-128 sq.
* Mattes, Abhundlung iiber die Ketzertaufe, in the Tiibinger Quartalschrift,
1849, S. 586.
° In Cyprian, Ep. 75, pp. 150, 161, Cf. Vita Cypriani, lc. p. exii. sq.
4 Seventy-fourth and seventy-fifth letters of S. Cyprian.
102 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
before the arrival of the letter from Rome.’ It was composed
of eighty-seven bishops (two were represented by one proxy,
Natalis Bishop of Oéa) from proconsular Africa, from Numidia,
and from Mauritania, and of a great number of priests and of
deacons. A multitude of the laity were also present at the
Synod. The acts of this Synod, which still exist, inform us
that it opened on the 1st September, but the year is ποῦ
indicated.? It is probable that it was in 256.
First was read the letter of the African Bishop Jubaianus
to Cyprian on the baptism of heretics, and the answer of
Cyprian ;* then a second letter from Jubaianus, in which he
declared himself now brought to Cyprian’s opinion. The
Bishop of Carthage then asked each bishop present freely to
express his opinion on the baptism of heretics: he declared
that no one would be judged or excommunicated for differ-
ences of opinion; for, added he, no one in the assembly
wished to consider himself as episcopus episcoporwm, or thought
to oblige his colleagues to yield to him, by inspiring them
with a tyrannical fear (perhaps this was an allusion to Pope
Stephen). Thereupon the bishops gave their votes in order,
Cyprian the last, all declaring that baptism given by heretics
wwas invalid, and that, in order to admit them into the Church,
it was necessary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by
heretics.
About the same time Cyprian sent the deacon Rogatian
with a letter to Firmilian Bishop of Ceesarea, to tell him how
the question about the baptism of heretics had been decided
in Africa. He communicated to him at the same time, it
appears, the acts and documents which treated of this busi-
ness. Firmilian hastened to express, in a letter still extant,
his full assent to Cyrian’s principles. This letter of Firmi-
lian’s forms No. 75 of the collection of the letters of 8%.
Cyprian: its contents are only, in general, an echo of what
S. Cyprian had set forth in defence of his own opinion, and
in opposition to Stephen; only in Firmilian is seen a much
1 Cf. Mattes, S. 587.
2 These acts are printed. Cf. Cypriani Opera, p. 829 sqq. ed. Bened. ; Mansi,
i. 957 sqq. ; and Hard. i. 159 sq.
3 Cf. Vita S. Cypriani, l.c. p. exvi. 4 Ep. 73.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 103
greater violence and passion against Stephen,—so much so,
that Molkenbuhr, [Roman Catholic] Professor at Paderborn,
has thought that a letter so disrespectful towards the Pope
could not be genuine."
We are entirely ignorant of what then passed between
Cyprian and Stephen, but it is certain that church com-
munion was not interrupted between them. The persecution
which soon afterwards broke out against the Christians under
the Emperor Valerian, in 257, probably appeased the contro-
versy. Pope Stephen died as a martyr during this persecu-
tion, in the month of August 257.2 His successor Xystus
received from Dionysius the Great, who had already acted as
mediator in this controversy on the baptism of heretics, three
letters in which the author earnestly endeavoured to effect a
reconciliation ; the Roman priest Philemon also received one
from Dionysius.’ These attempts were crowned with success;
for Pontius, Cyprian’s deacon and biographer, calls Pope Xystus
bonus et pacificus sacerdos, and the name of this Pope was
written in the diptychs of Africa The eighty-second letter
of Cyprian also proves that the union between Rome and
Carthage was not interrupted, since Cyprian sent a deputation
to Rome during the persecution, to obtain information respect-
ing the welfare of the Roman Church, that of Pope Xystus,
and in general about the progress of the persecution. Soon
after, on the 14th September 258, Cyprian himself fell, in his
turn, a victim to the persecution of Valerian.
It remains for us now, in order fully to understand the
controversy on the baptism of heretics, to express with
greater precision the opinions and assertions of Cyprian and
Stephen. | |
1. We must ask, first of all, which of the two had Chris-
tian antiquity on his side.
a. Cyprian says, in his seventy-third letter :> “The custom
of baptizing heretics who enter the Church is no innovation
*Molkenbuhr, Bine dissertationes de Firmiliano, in Migne, Cursus Patro-
poy iii, 1957 sq. On Molkenbuhr, cf. in Freiburger Kirchenlex. Bd. vii.
2 Cf. Vita 8. Cypriani, le. p. exvi.
3. Euseb, Mist. Eccl. vii. 5,7, and 9. Cf. Vita 5. Cypriani, l.c. p. ex.
*Cf. Vita δὲ Cypriani, l.c. p. cxx. vey 4, SBcl
104 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
amongst us: for it is now many years since, under the epis-
copate of Agrippinus of holy memory, a great number of
bishops settled this question in a synod; and since then, up to
our days, thousands of heretics have received baptism without
difficulty.” Cyprian, then, wishing to demonstrate the anti-
quity of his custom, could not place it earlier than Agrippinus,
that is to say, than the commencement of the third century
(about 220 years after Christ); and his own words, especially
the “since then” (exinde), show that it was Agrippinus who
introduced this custom into Africa.
6. In another passage of the same letter; Cyprian adds :
“Those who forbid the baptism of heretics, having been con-
quered by our reasons (ratione), urge against us the custom
of antiquity (gui ratione vincuntur, consuetudinem nobis oppo-
nunt).” 11 Cyprian had been able to deny that the practice
of his adversaries was the most ancient, he would have said:
“They are wrong if they appeal to antiquity (conswetudo) ; it is
evidently for us.” But Cyprian says nothing of the kind: he
acknowledges that his adversaries have antiquity on their side,
and he only tries to take its force from this fact, by asking,
“Ts antiquity, then, more precious than truth? (quasi consuetudo
major sit veritate) ;’ and by adding, “In spiritual things we
must observe what the Holy Spirit has (afterwards) more
fully revealed (id in spiritualibus sequendum, quod in melius
fuertt a Spiritw sancto revelatum).” He acknowledges, there-
fore, in his practice a progress brought about by the successive
revelations of the Holy Spirit.
ὁ. In a third passage of this letter? 5. Cyprian acknow-
ledges, if possible more plainly, that it was not the ancient
custom to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics.
“This objection,” he says, “may be made to me: What has
become of those who in past times entered the Church: from
heresy, without having been baptized?” He acknowledges,
then, that in the past, in preteritwm, converts from heresy were
not re-baptized. Cyprian makes answer to this question :
“ Divine mercy may well come to their aid ; but because one has
erred once, it is no reason for continuing to err (non tamen, quia
aliquondo erratum est, ideo semper errandum est). That is to
1,0. p. 188. 2 Ῥ᾽ 186,
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS, 109
say, formerly converts were not re-baptized ; but it was a mis-
take, and for the future the Holy Spirit has revealed what is
best to be done (in melius a Spiritu sancto revelatum).
d. When Pope Stephen appealed to tradition, Cyprian did
not answer by denying the fact: he acknowledges it; but he
seeks to diminish the value of it, by calling this tradition a
human tradition, and not lecitimate (humana traditio, non
legitima).* 3
6. Firmilian also maintained? that the tradition to which
Stephen appealed was purely human, and he added that the
Roman Church had also in other points swerved from the
practice of the primitive Church—for example, in the celebra-
tion of Easter. This example, however, was not well chosen,
since the Easter practice of the Roman Church dates back to
the prince of the apostles.
j. Firmilian says, in another passage® of this same letter,
that it was anciently the custom also in the African Churches
not to re-baptize the converts: “You Africans,” he says, “can
answer Stephen, that having found the truth, you have re-
nounced the error of your (previous) custom (vos dicere Afrs
potestis, cognita veritate errorem vos consuctudinis reliquisse).”
Nevertheless, Firmilian thought that it was otherwise in Asia
Minor, and that the custom of re-baptizing converts was traced
back to a very far-off period ; but when he wishes to give the
proof of it, he only finds this one: “ We do not remember (!)
when this practice began amongst us.”* He appeals, in the
last place, to the Synod of Iconium,’ which we know was not
held until about the year 230.
g. It is worthy of remark, that even in Africa all the
bishops did not pronounce in favour of the necessity of a fresh
baptism,’ which would certainly have been the case if the
practice of Agrippinus and Cyprian had always prevailed in
Africa.
h. A very important testimony in favour of Stephen, and
one wnich proves that the ancient custom was not to re-baptize,
is given by the anonymous author of the book de Rebaptismate,
1 Ep. 74, p. 139. 2 Τὴ Cyprian, Hp. 75, p. 144.
+ Ptah *P. 149.
> Pp. 149 and 145. 6 Cf. Cypr. Ep. 71. See above, p. 99.
106 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
a contemporary and probably a colleague of Cyprian This
author says that the practice maintained by Stephen, that of
simply laying hands on the converts without re-baptizing them,
is consecrated by antiquity and by ecclesiastical tradition
(vetustissima consuetudine ae traditione ecclesiastica), consecrated
as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance by all the
saints, and all the faithful (prisca et memorabilis cunctorum
emeritorum sanctorum et fidelium solemnissima observatio), which
has in its favour the authority of all the churches (awctoritas
omnium Ecelesiarwm), but from which unhappily some have
departed, from the mania for innovations.”
ἡ. S. Vincent of Leérins agrees with the author we have
just quoted, when he says that Agrippinus of Carthage was
the jirst who introduced the custom of re-baptizing, contra
divinum canonem, contra universalis Ecclesie regulam, contra
morem atqgue instituta nuyorum; but that Pope Stephen con-
demned the innovation and re-established the tradition, retenta
est antiquitas, explosa novitas.®
k. ὃ. Augustine also believes that the custom of not re-
baptizing heretics is an apostolical tradition (credo ex apostolica
traditione venientem), and that it was Agrippinus who was the
first to abolish this wholesome custom (saluberrima consuctudo),
without succeeding in replacing it by a better custom, as
Cyprian thought.‘
7. But the gravest testimony in this question is that of the
Philosophoumena, in which Hippolytus, who wrote about 230,
affirms that the custom of re-baptizing was only admitted under
Pope Callistus, consequently between 218 and 222.
m. Before arriving at the conclusion to be deduced from all
these proofs, it remains for us to examine some considerations
which appear to point in an opposite direction.
(a.) In his book de Baptismo, which he wrote when he was
still a Catholic, and still earlier in a work written in Greek,
Tertullian shows that he did not believe in the validity of
1 Reprinted at the end of the works of S. Cyprian in the Benedict. edition,
p. 353 sq. As to the author, see Vita Cypriani, l.c. p. cxxvi., and Mattes,
fc. p. 591.
2 Cf. the beginning of this book, Zc. Ὁ. 353.
3 Commonitorium, c. 9. 4 De Baptism. c. Donat. ii. 7 (12).
5 Cf. above, p. 86. 8 ©, 26. ΤΟ, 15.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 107
baptism conferred by heretics. But, on considering it atten-
tively, we find that he was not speaking of all baptism by
heretics, but only of the baptism of those who had another God
and another Christ. Besides, we know that Tertullian is al-
ways inclined to rigorism, and he certainly is so on this point ;
and then, living at Carthage at the commencement of the
third century, being consequently a contemporary of Agrip-
pinus, perhaps even being one of his clergy, he naturally
inclined to resolve this question as Agrippinus. resolved it,
and his book de Baptismo perhaps exerted an influence upon
the resolutions of the Synod of Carthage.’ Besides, Tertullian
does not pretend that it was the primitive custom of the
Church to re-baptize: his words rather indicate that he thought
the contrary. He says, Sed circa hereticos sane quid custodi-
endum sit, digne quis retractet ; that is to say, “It would be
useful if some one would study afresh (or examine more atten-
tively) what ought to be done about heretics, that is to say,
in relation to their baptism.” ?
(8.) Dionysius the Great says, in a passage which Eusebius?
has preserved: “The Africans were not the first to introduce
this practice (that of re-baptizing converts) : it is more ancient ;
it was authorized by bishops who lived much eazlier, and in
populous’ Churches.” However, as he only mentions the
Synods of Iconium and of Synnada before the Africans, his
expression much earlier can only refer to these assemblies,
and he adduces no earlier testimony for the practice of
Cyprian.
(y.) Clement of Alexandria certainly speaks very disdainfully
of baptism by heretics, and calls it foreign water ;* he does
not, however, say that they were in the habit of renewing this
baptism.’
(6.) The Apostolical Canons 45 and 46 (or 46 and 47,
according to another order) speak of the non-validity of bap-
tism by heretics;° but the question is to know what is the
date of these two canons: perhaps they are contemporary with
1 Cf. Dollinger, Hippolytus, S. 191. 2 Mattes, 1.6. S. 594.
3 Hist. Eccl. vii. 7. |
* Stromat. lib. i. c. 19 ad finem, vol. i. p. 375, ed. Pott. Venet.
$ Cf. Mattes, Uc. 5. 593. 6 Hard. i, 22 ; Mansi, i, 39.
108 ΠΟΤ ".. HISTORY OF- THE COUNCILS, -::
the Synods of Iconium and of Synnada, perhaps even more
recent.’
We are hardly able to doubt, then, that in the ancient
Church, those who returned to the orthodox faith, after having
been baptized by heretics, were not re-baptized, if they had
received baptism in the name of the Trinity, or of JESUS. —
2. Let us see now whether Pope Stephen considered as
valid baptism conferred by all heretics, without any exception
or condition. We know that the Synod of Arles in 314?
as well as the Council of Trent,’ teaches that the baptism of
heretics is. valid only when it is administered in the name
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. . Were the
opinions and assertions of Stephen agreeable to this doctrine
of the Church ? )
At first sight Stephen appears to have gone too far, and to
have admitted all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner
it was conferred.. His chief proposition, as we read it in S.
Cyprian, is expressed in these terms: Si quis ergo a quacunque
heresi venerit ad nos, nil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut
manus ult imponatur in penitentiam.s He seems, then, to de-
clare valid all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner it
might have been administered, with or without the formula
of the Trinity. Cyprian argues, in a measure, as if he under-
stood Stephen’s proposition in this sense.® However,
a. From several passages in the letters of S. Cyprian, we
see that Pope Stephen did not thus understand it.
(a.) Thus (Zpist. 73, p. 130) Cyprian says: “Those who
forbid the baptism of heretics lay great stress upon this, that
even those who had been baptized by Marcion were not re-
baptized, because they had already been baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ.” Thus Cyprian acknowledges that Stephen, and
those who think with him,’ attribute no value to the baptism of
heretics, except it be administered in the name of Jesus Christ.
1 Drey considers them as more ancient, in his Researches on the Constitutions:
and Canons of the Apostles, p. 260. Cf. the contrary opinion of Déllinger,.
Hippol. S, 192 ff. |
PO, 8, εν 8 Sess. 7, c. 4, de Bapt. 4 See Cypr. Zp. 74, p. 188.
5 Epist. 74, pp. 188, 139,
° We must admit that the latter were not agreed among themselves, as S.
Cyprian was with his adherents. Cf. Mattes, l.c. 5. 605.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 109
(8.) Cyprian acknowledges in the same letter (p. 133), that
heretics baptize in nomine Christi.
(y.) Again, in this letter," he twice repeats that his adver-
saries considered as sufficient baptism administered out of the
Church, but administered in nomine Christa.
(δ) Cyprian, in answering this particular question—if bap-
tism by the Marcionites is valid—acknowledges that they bap-
tize in the name of the Trinity ; but he remarks that, under the
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they
understand something different from what the Church under-
stands. This argument leads us to conclude that the adver-
saries of 5. Cyprian considered baptism by the Marcionites
to be valid, because they conferred it in the name of the
Trinity.
b. Firmilian also gives testimony on the side of Stephen.
(a.) He relates, indeed, that about twenty-two years before
he had baptized a woman in his own country who professed
to be a prophetess, but who, in fact, was possessed by an evil
spirit. Now, he asks, would Stephen and his partisans approve
even of the baptism which she had received, because it had
been administered with the formula of the Trinity (maxime
cut nec symbolum Trinitatis defuit) 2?
(β.) Inthe same letter® Firmilian sums up Stephen’s opinion
m these terms: Jn multwm proficit nomen Christi ad fidem et
baptismi sanctificationem, ut quicungue et ubicunque vi nomine
Christi baptizatus fucrit, consequatur statim gratiam Christt.
c. If, then, Cyprian and Firmilian affirm that Pope Stephen
held baptism to-be valid only when conferred in the name of
Christ, we have no need to have recourse to the testimony
either of S. Jerome, or of 5. Augustine, or of δ. Vincent of
Lérins, who also affirm it.*
d. The anonymous author of the book de Rebaptismate, who
was a contemporary even of S. Cyprian, begins his work with
these words: “There has been a dispute as to the manner in
which it is right to act towards those who have been baptized
by heretics, but still in the name of Jesus Christ: qui in
act PD. ,144, |
2 Ep. 75 of the Collection of S. Cyprian’s letters, p. 146.
8 ἐς, p. 148.2 o> .4#Cf. Mattes, Lc. S. 603.
110 ; HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
herest quidem, sed in nomine Dei nostri Jesu Christt, sint
tinctt.” ἢ
6. It may again be asked if Stephen expressly required
that the three divine Persons should be named in the admini-
stration of baptism, and if he required it as a condition sine
qua non, or if he considered baptism as valid when given only
in the name of Jesus Christ. 8. Cyprian seems to imply that
the latter was the sentiment of Pope Stephen? but he does
not positively say so anywhere; and if he had said it, nothing
could have been legitimately concluded against Pope Stephen,
for Cyprian likes to take the words of his adversaries in their
worst sense. What we have gathered (a ὃ and Ὁ a) tends to
prove that Pope Stephen regarded the formula of the Trinity
as necessary. Holy Scripture had introduced the custom of
calling by the short phrase, baptism in the name of Christ, all
baptism which was conferred in virtue of faith in Jesus Christ,
and conformably to His precepts, consequently in the name of
the Holy Trinity, as is seen in the Acts of the Apostles’ and in
the Epistle to the Romans. It is not, then, astonishing that
Pope Stephen should have used an expression which was per-
fectly intelligible at that period.
J. In this discussion Pope Stephen seems to believe that all)
the heretics of his time used the true formula of baptism,
consequently the same formula among themselves, and the’
same as the Church. He declares this opinion clearly in
these words, adduced from his letter by Firmilian : Stephanus in
sua epistola dixit: heereticos quoque tpsos in baptismo convenire .
and it was on this account, added the Pope, that the heretics
did not re-baptize those who passed from one sect to another.
To speak thus, was certainly to affirm that all the sects agreed
in administering baptism with the formula prescribed by our
Lord.
S. Cyprian also attributes to Pope Stephen words which
can be explained very well if we study them with reference to
those quoted by Firmilian. According to 5. Cyprian,' Stephen
1 In the Bened. edition of the works of S. Cyprian, p. 353.
* Ep. 73, p. 134 sq. 3 ii. 38, viii.'16, xix. 5,
*vi. 3. Cf. Binterim, Memorabilia, i. 132; Klee, Dogmeng. ii, 149 f.
* Hp. 75, Among those of Cyprian, p, 144. © Ep. 74, p. 138.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS, lil
had said: “ We must not re-baptize those who have been
baptized by heretics, cum wpst heretict proprie alterutrum
ad se venientes non baptizent ;” that is to say, the different
sects have not a special baptism of their own (proprie non
baptizent): and it is for this reason that heretics do not
re-baptize those who pass from one sect to another. Now if
the different sects have not special baptism, if they baptize in
the same way—conveniunt in baptismo—as Firmilian makes
Pope Stephen affirm, they hold necessarily the universal and
primitive mode of Christian baptism; consequently they use
the formula of the Trinity.
It is difficult to say whether, in admitting this hypothesis,
Stephen falls into an historical error: for, on one side, S.
Trenzeus’ accuses the Gnostics of having falsified the baptismal
formula, and of ‘having used different erroneous formulas; and
consequently he contradicts Stephen ; and, on the other side,
S. Augustine appears to agree with him, saying: facilius
inveniuntur heretict qui omnino non baptizent quam qui non ilis
verbis (in nomine Patris, etc.) baptizent.
g. We may be inclined to make an objection against Stephen
on the subject of the Montanists. There is no doubt, in fact,
that Stephen considered the baptism of these heretics to be
valid, while the Church afterwards declared it to be of no
value. But Stephen’s opinion is not in this contrary to the
doctrine of the Church; neither did the Council of Nica
(can. 19) mention the Montanists among those whose baptism
it rejected. It could not do so any more than Stephen; for it
was not until long after the time of Stephen and of the
Council of Niczea that a degenerate sect of Montanists fell
away into formal anti-Trinitarianism.*
3. It remains for us to understand what, according to
Stephen’s opinion, was to be done with the converts after
their reception into the Church. These are Stephen’s words
on this subject: Si quis ergo a quacumque herest vencrit ad
1 Adv. heres. i. 21. 3. 2 De Baptism. c. Donat. vi. 25 (47).
3 Seventh canon, attributed to the second General Council, but which docs
not belong to it. '
4Cf. Hefele’s article “‘Montanus” in Freiburger Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii.
8. 264, 265. ,
Laz: HISTORY OF THE COUNUIiLS.
nos, nil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus tlli impo"
natur in penitentiam. There is a sense which is often given
to this passage, as follows: “No innovation shall be made;
only what is conformable to tradition shall be observed; hands
shall be laid on the convert in sign of penitence.” But this
interpretation is contrary to grammatical rules. If Stephen
had wished to speak in this sense, he would have said: Nihil
ennovetur, sed quod traditum est observetur, etc. Hence Mattes
translates the words of Stephen thus: “Nothing shall be
changed (as regards the convert) but what it is according to
tradition to change; that is to say, that hands shall be laid
upon him,” ? ete.
Stephen adds, i penitentiam, that is, that “it is necessary
that a penance should be imposed on the convert.” According
to the practice of the Church, a heretic who enters into the
Church ought first to receive the sacrament of penance, then
that of confirmation, One may ask, if Stephen required these
two sacraments, or if he only required that of penance? Each
of these sacraments comprehended the imposition of hands, as
some words of Pope Vigilius? clearly indicate; and consequently
by the expression, manus ali imponatur, Stephen may under-
stand the administration of the two sacraments. To say that
there is only in penitentiam in the text, is not a very strong
objection ; for this text is only a fragment, and Cyprian has
transmitted to us elsewhere other texts of Stephen’s thus
abridged. The manner in which the adversaries of Pope
Stephen analysed his opinions shows that this Pope really
required, besides penance, the confirmation of the converts.
Thus, in his seventy-third letter, Cyprian avcuses his adver-
saries of self-contradiction, saying: “If baptism out of the
Church is valid, it is no longer necessary even to lay hands on the
converts, ut Spiritwm Sanctum consequatur et signetur;” that
ΟἹ Mattes, 1.6. S. 628. The first interpretation of this passage is, besides, the
one which was admitted by Christian antiquity ; and the words of Pope Stephen
became a dictum classicum for tradition, as is proved by the use which Vincent
of Lérins makes of them, Commonitorium, c. 9.
2 Vigilii Hp. 2, ad Profut. τι. 4, in Migne, Cursus Patrol. iii. 1263; and
Mattes, l.c. S. 632.
3 Thus, above, for this text, Hereticit proprie non baptizent. Cf. Mattes, le
pp. 629, 611. :
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS, 113
is to say: You contradict yourselves if you attribute a real
value to baptism by heretics; you must also equally admit
the validity of confirmation by heretics. Now you require
that those who have been confirmed by heretics should be so
again. §. Cyprian here forgets the great difference which
exists between the value of baptism and of confirmation ;* but
his words. prove that Stephen wished that not only penance
but also confirmation should be bestowed upon converts,
The same conclusion is to be drawn from certain votes of
the bishops assembled at the third Council of Carthage (256).
Thus Secundinus Bishop of Carpi said: “The imposition of
hands (without the repetition of baptism, as Stephen required)
cannot bring down the Holy Spirit upon the converts, because
they have not yet even been baptized.” Nemesianus Bishop
of Thubuni speaks still more clearly: “They (the adversaries)
believe that by imposition of hands the Holy Spirit is im-
parted, whilst regeneration is possible only when one receives
the two sacraments (baptism and confirmation®) in the Church.”
These two testimonies prove that Stephen regarded confirma-
tion as well as penance to be necessary for converts.’
. 4, What precedes shows that we must consider as incorrect
and unhistorical the widespread opinion, that Stephen as well
as Cyprian carried things to an extreme, and that the proper
mean was adopted by the Church only as the result of their
differences.”
5. It is the part of Dogmatic Theology, rather than of a
History of the Councils, to show why Cyprian was wrong, and
why those who had been baptized by heretics should not be
re-baptized. Some short explanation on this point will, how-
ever, not be out of place here.
S. Cyprian repeated essentially Tertullian’s argument, yet
without naming it, and thus summed it up: “ As there is
only one Christ, so there is only one Church: she only is the
way of salvation; she only can administer the sacraments ;
1 Mattes, 1.0. p. 630 sq., shows the reasons which prove that heretics can.
legally administer baptism, but not confirmation,
2 Cypr. Opp. p. 888. 3 Cypr. Opp. p. 880.
4 See more details in Mattes, U.c. pp. 615-686.
5 Cf. Mattes, lc. p. 608.
H
114 3 ες; HISTORY OF THE COUNUILS.
out of her pale no sacrament can be validly administered.” ?
He adds: “ Baptism forgives sins: now Christ left only to
the apostles the power of forgiving sins; then heretics can-
not be possessed of it, and consequently it is impossible for
them to baptize.”? Finally, he concludes: “ Baptism is a new
birth ; by it children are born to God in Christ: now the
Church only is the bride of Christ; she only can, therefore,
be the means of this new birth.” ὃ
In his controversy against the Donatists (who revived
Cyprian’s doctrine on this point), S. Augustine demonstrated
with great completeness, and his accustomed spiritual power,
two hundred and fifty years afterwards, that this line of areu-
ment was unsound, and that the strongest grounds existed
for the Church’s practice defended by Stephen. The demon-
stration of S. Augustine is as simple as powerful.* He
-brought out these three considerations :-—
a. Sinners are separated spiritually from the Church, as
heretics are corporally. The former are as really out of the
Church as the latter: if heretics could not legally baptize,
sinners could not either; and thus the validity of the sacra-
ment would absolutely depend upon the inward state of the
minister.
b. We must distinguish between the grace of baptism and
the act of baptism: the minister acts, but it is God who gives
the grace; and He can give it even by means of an unworthy
minister.
c. The heretic is, without any doubt, owt of the Church ;
but the baptism which he confers is not an alien baptism,
for it is not jis, it is Christ’s baptism, the baptism which He
confers, and consequently a true baptism, even when con-
ferred out of the Church. In leaving the Church, the
heretics have taken many things away with them, especially
faith in Jesus Christ and baptism. These fragments of Church
truth are the elements, still pure (and not what they have
1 Cypr. Ep. 71, 73, 74. 2 Cypr. 70, 73.
Ὁ Ep. 74. Mattes has perfectly recapitulated 8. Cyprian’s argument in the
— second art. of his Abhandlung iiber Ketzertaufe, in Tiibinger Quartalschrift,
1850, S. 24 sq.
4 Tn his work, de Baptismo contra Donatistas.
SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS, 115
as heretics), which enable them by baptism to give birth to
children of God!
After 8. Augustine, 8S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Bonaventura,
the editors of the Roman Catechism, and others, have dis-
cussed the question anew; and the principal propositions
upon which the whole subject turns are the following :—
(a.) He who baptizes is a simple instrument, and Christ
can use any instrument whatever, provided that he does what
Christ (the Church) wills that he should do. This instrument
only performs the act of baptism; the grace of baptism comes
from God. Thus any man, even a heathen, can administer
baptism, provided that he will do as the Church does; and
this latitude with respect to the administrant of baptism is not
without reason: it is founded upon this, that baptism is really
necessary as a means of salvation.
(8.) Baptism, then, by a heretic will be valid, if it is ad-
ministered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, and with the intention of doing as the Church
does (tntentio faciendi, quod facit ecclesia).
(y.) Should he who has thus been baptized, after remaining
a long time in heresy, acknowledge his error and his separa-
tion from the Church, he ought, in order to be admitted into
the Church, to submit to a penance (manus impositio ad
pententiam) ; but it is not necessary to re-baptize him.
(δ) The sacraments are often compared to channels through
which divine grace comes to us. Then, when any one is bap-
tized in a Lovetical sect, but is baptized according to the rules,
the channel of grace is truly applied to him, and there flows
to him through this channel not only the remission of sins
(remissio peccatorwm), but also sanctification and the renewal
of the inner man (sanetificatio et renovatio interioris allies ;
that is to say, he receives the grace of baptism.
(¢.) It is otherwise with confirmation. From the time of
the apostles, they only, and never the deacons, their fellow-
workers, had the power of giving confirmation.2? Now, too, it
is only the legitimate successors of the apostles, the bishops,
who can adshintister this sacrament in the Church. If, there-
1S. Augustine’s arguments are given in detail in Mattes, lc. pp. 30-45.
3 Acts viii. 14-17, xix. 6,
116 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
fore, any one has been confirmed whilst he was in heresy, he
can have been so only by a schismatical or heretical bishop or
priest ; so that his confirmation must be invalid, and it is
necessary that the imposition of hands should be repeated, wé
Spiritum sanctum consequatur et signetur.*
Doctor Mattes has brought out, with much depth, in the
dissertation which we have already frequently quoted, the
different reasons for believing that baptism and marriage may
be administered by those who are not Christians.’
Sec. 7. Synod of Narbonne (255-260).
The councils of Christian Africa have chiefly occupied our
attention so far: we are now to direct attention to those of
the other countries of the Roman Empire, and first to those
of Gaul. It is known that, about the middle of the third
century, seven missionary bishops were sent into Gaul by
Pope Fabian, and that one of them was S. Paul, first bishop
of Narbonne. The acts of his life which have reached us
speak of a synod held at Narbonne on his account between
255 and 260. Two deacons, whom the holy bishop had
often blamed for their incontinence, wished to revenge them-
selves on him in a diabolical manner. They secretly put a
pair of women’s slippers under his bed, and then showed them
in proof of the bishop’s impurity. Paul found himself obliged
to assemble his colleagues in a synod, that they might judge
of his innocence or culpability. While the bishops conti-
nued the inquiry for three days, an eagle came and placed
itself upon the roof of the house where they were assembled.
Nothing could drive it away, and during those three days a
raven brought it food. On the third day Paul ordered public
prayer that God would make known the truth. The deacons
were then seized by an evil spirit, and so tormented, that they
ended by confessing their perfidy and calumny. They could
only be delivered through prayer, and they renewed their
1 Cypr. Zp. 73, p. 131, above, p. 112.
2 Tiibinger Quartalschrift, 1850, 8. 51-66. See also in the I’reiburger Kurchen-
lexicon, Bd. vi. S. 71 ff., Gruscha’s article on the subject of baptism admini-
stered by heretics. Gruscha also mentions the works to be consulted on this
question.
SYNODS AT ARSINOE AND ROME, 117
confession. Instead of judging Paul, the bishops threw tkem-
selves at his feet, and with all the people entreated his inter-
cession with God. The eagle then took flight towards the
East."
Such is the account given in the Acts. They are ancient,
but full of fables, and, as Remi Ceillier and others have
already shown, cannot be regarded as a serious historical
document.”
SEC. 8. Synods at Arsinde and Rome (255-260).
We have, unlike the case last considered, the most tho-
roughly historical records of the assembly over which Diony-
sius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, presided at Arsinde?
and of which he speaks himself in Eusebius. Nepos, an
Egyptian bishop, also a very venerable man, and author of
some Christian canticles, had fallen into the error of the Mil-
lenarians, and had endeavoured to spread it.’ Dying some
time after, he could not be judged ; and his primate, Dionysius
the Great, had to content himself with refuting the opinions
which he had propagated. He did so in two books, περὲ
ἐπαγγελιῶν. Besides this, about 255, Dionysius being near
to Arsinée, where the errors of Nepos had made great pro-
gress, assembled the priests (of Nepos) and the hanes of the
place, and prevailed upon them to submit their doctrine to a
discussion which should take place before all their brethren,
who would be present at it. In the debate they relied upon
a work by Nepos, which the Millenarians much venerated.
Dionysius disputed with them for three days; and both parties,
says Dionysius himself, showed much moderation, calmness,
and love of truth. The result was, that Coration, chief of the
party of Nepos, promised to renounce his error, and the dis-
cussion terminated to the satisfaction of all.
1 Cf. Franc. de Bosquet, Hist. Ecc’. Gall. lib. v. p. 106 ; and Mansi, i. 1002.
* Remi Ceillier, Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés, iii. 593 ; Walch, Hist.
der Kirchenvers. 8. 110; Gallia Christiana, v. 5 ; Histoire du Languedoc, t. i.
νυ. 129-sqq.
5. Arsinde was an episcopal town in Egypt, in the province of Heptanomos,
belonging to the patriarchate of Alexandria.
+ Lib. vii. 24, ° Upon Nepos, see Freiburger Kirchenlexicon on this word,
8 Kuseb, Hist. Eccl. vii. 24.
118 ' WISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. ὦ
Some years later, about 260, the same Dionysius the Great,
from his manner of combating Sabellius, gave occasion for the
holding of a Roman synod, of which we shall speak more at
length in giving the history of the origin of Arianism.
SEC. 9. Zhrce Synods at Antioch on account of Paul of
Samosata (264-269),
Three synods at Antioch in Syria occupied themselves with
the accusation and deposition of the bishop of that town, the
well-known anti-Trinitarian, Paul of Samosata.
Sabellius had wished to strengthen the idea of unity in the
doctrine of the Trinity, by seppressing the difference between
the persons, and only admitting, instead of the persons, three
different modes of action in the one person of God; conse-
quently denying the personal difference between the Father
and the Son, and zdentifying them both. In his doctrinal
explanation of the mystery of the Trinity, Paul of Samosata
took an opposite course: he separated the one from the other,
the Father and the Son, far too much. Te set off, as Sabellius
did, from a confusion’ of the divine persons, and regarded the
Logos as an impersonal virtue of God in no way distinct from
the Father. In JHSUS he saw only a man penetrated by the
Logos, who, although miraculously born of a virgin,’ was yet
only a man, and not the God-man. His inferior being was ἐκ
παρθένου ; his superior being, on the contrary, was penetrated
by the Logos. The Logos had dwelt in the man Jesus, not in
person, but in quality, as virtue or power (οὐκ οὐσιωδῶς ἀλλὰ
κατὰ ποιότητα). Moreover, by an abiding penetration, He
sanctified him, and rendered him worthy of a divine name.”
Paul of Samosata further taught, that as the Logos is not a
person, so also the Holy Spirit is only a divine virtue, imper- _
sonal, belonging to the Father, and distinct from Him only in
thought.
Thus, while Paul on one side approached Sabellianism, on
1 Nicht-unterscheidung. 2 Cf. Athanas. Contra Apollin. ii. 8.
3 See, upon the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person
Christi, Thl. i. 8. 510 ff. ; Schwab, de Pauli Samos. vita atque doctrina, Diss.
inaug. 1839; Feuerlin, Disp. de heresi Pauli Sumos.; Walch, Ketzerhist. Ba. ii.
S. 64-126.
%
SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 119.
the other side he inclined towards the Subordinatians of Alex-
andria. We will not discuss whether Jewish errors, of which
Philastrius accuses him, were mixed with this monarchianism,
as this is merely an accessory question. Theodoret says more
accurately, that Paul sought, by his anti-Trinitarian doctrines,
to please his protectress and sovereign Zenobia, who was a
Jewess, and consequently held anti-Trinitarian opinions.
The new error was so much the more dangerous, as the
ecclesiastical and political position of its author was of great
importance. He filled the highest see in the East. We know
also, that in 264 or 2657 a great number of bishops assembled
at Antioch ; particularly Firmilian of Czesarea in Cappadocia,
Gregory Thaumatureus and his brother Athenodorus, the
Archbishop Helenus of Tarsus in Cilicia, Nicomas of Iconium,
Hymeneus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Cxsarea in Palestine.
(the friend of Origen), Maximus of Bostra, and many other
bishops, priests, and deacons. Dionysius the Great of Alex-
andria had also been invited to the Syaod; but his age and
infirmities prevented him from going in person, and he died a
short time after. He had wished at least to be able in writ-'
ing to defend the doctrine of the Church against Paul of
Samosata, as he had before defended it against Sabellius.’
According to Eusebius, he addressed a letter to the church
at Antioch, in which he would not even salute the bishop.
Without entirely confirming this statement furnished by
Eusebius, Theodoret relates that in that letter Dionysius
exhorted Paul to do what was right, whilst he encouraged
the assembled bishops to redoubled zeal for orthodoxy. From
these testimonies we may conclude that Dionysius wrote three
letters—one to Paul, another to the bishops in Synod, a third
to the church at Antioch; but it is also true that one single
letter might easily contain all that Eusebius and Theodoret
attribute to Dionysius.’
1 Theodoret, Heret. fabul. lib. ii. ο. 8.
2 We know this date from that of the death of Dionysius of Alexandria, who,
as Eusebius says, died soon after this Synod (vii. 28).
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 27, 28 ; Theodoret, l.c. . Ἐν, ὁ
5 The letter by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata, containing ten questions of
Paul’s, and answers from Dionysius, which was first published by Turrianus, a
Jesuit, and which is found also in Mansi, i. 1039 sq., is not authentic. Opinions
120° HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Tn a great number of sessions and discussions they sought.
to demonstrate the errors of Paul, and entreated him to return
to orthodoxy ; but the latter, cleverly dissembling his doctrine,
protested that he had never professed such errors, and that he
had always followed the apostolic dogmas. After these de-
clarations, the bishops being satisfied, thanked God for this
harmony, and separated.
But they found that they were soon obliged to assemble again.
at Antioch, Firmilian appears to have presided over this fresh
assembly, as he had over the first: its exact date is not certainly
known. The Synod explicitly condemned the new doctrine
introduced by Paul, As, however, Paul promised to renounce
and retract his errors (as he had absolutely rejected them as
his in the first Synod), Firmilian and the bishops allowed
themselves to be deceived a second time.’
Paul did not keep his promise, and soon, says Theodoret,’
‘the report was spread that he professed his former errors as
before. However, the bishops would not cut him off imme-
-diately from communion with the Church: they tried again
to bring him back to the right way by a letter which they
addressed to him ;* and it was only when this last attempt
had failed that they assembled for the third time at Antioch,
-are there attributed to Paul which he did not profess ; as, for example, that of
two Christs, of two Sons: the name of mother of God is often given to Mary, and
the whole betrays a period later than Nestorius. None of the ancients knew
-of this letter. Cf. Remi Ceillier, iii, 277; Mohler, Patrol. i. S. 682 ; Walch,
Ketzergesch. ii. 8. 71 ff., 83 ff.
ὁ Theodoret, U.c. ; Euseb. vii. 28. 2 Euseb. Hist. Hecl. vii. 30. mee:
4 Theodoret, l.c. The Jesuit Turrianus discovered a pretended letter from six
bishops of the Synod of Antioch, addressed to Paul of Samosata, containing a
complete creed, and ending with the demand that Paul should declare whether
he agreed with it or not. This letter was first quoted in Latin by Baronius, ad
ann, 266, ἢ. 4, and taken for genuine. It is given in Greek and Latin by
Mansi, i. 1033 ; and the creed which it contains is most accurately reproduced
by Hahn, Biblioth. d. Symb. 1842, S. 91 ff. The letter in question was regarded
as genuine by Mansi in his notes on Natalis Alexander, Hist. Hecl. iv. 145,
Venet. 1778 ; but its genuineness was called in question by Dupin (Nouvelle
Bibliothéque, etc., i. 214), by Remi Ceillier (Histoire des auteurs sacrés, iii. 607),
and still more by Gottfried Lumper (Historia theol. crit. xiii. 711), for these
reasons: 1. The letter was unknown by the ancients ; 2. Paul of Samosata is
spoken of in a friendly manner in the letter, although, as a matter of fact,
several years before Dionysius the Great of Alexandria would not even name
him, and Paul had by this time become much worse ; 3. The letter is signed hy
SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA, 121
towards the close of the year 209. Bishop Firmilian died at
Tarsus in going to this Synod. According to Athanasius, the
number of assembled bishops reached seventy, and eighty
according to Hilarius.” The deacon Basil, who wrote in the
fifth century,’ raises it even to a hundred and eighty. Fir-
milian being dead, Helenus presided over the assembly, as we
are expressly assured by the Libellus Synodicus. Besides
Helenus, Hymenzeus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Czesarea in
Palestine, Maximus of Bostra, Nicomas of Iconium, and others,
were present.’ Among the priests who were present at the
Synod, Malchion was especially remarkable, who, after having
taught rhetoric with much success at Antioch, had been
ordained priest there on account of the purity of his manners
and the ardour of his faith, He was chosen by the bishops
assembled at Antioch as the opponent in discussion of Paul
of Samosata, on account of his vast knowledge and his skill
in logic. The notaries kept an account of all that was said.
These documents still existed in the time of Eusebius and of
Jerome; but we have only some short fragments preserved
by two writers of the sixth century—Leontius of Byzantium
and Peter the deacon.®
only six bishops, whilst ten times that number were present at the Synod; 4. In
this letter Hymenzeus of Jerusalem is named as president, while we know that
it was Helenus of Tarsus who presided at the third Synod of Antioch. Never-
theless, more recently, Hahn (/.c.) has adduced the creed contained in this letter
as genuine ; but Dorner (Lehre v. der Person Christi, Bd. i. S. 767, note 38 ; Eng.
ed. of Clark, A, ii. 10 ff.) shows that the proposition of this creed, ‘‘ There are
not two Christs,” could have no reference to Paul of Samosata (cf. also Walch,
Ketzerhist. Bd. ii. 8. 117). Some learned men have ascribed the letter to the
first Antiochene Synod, which is even less possible. It might rather have been
published before or during the third Synod by six of its members. Even if it
is genuine, it is impossible to prove that it is identical with the letter quoted
above from Theodoret, and intended to bring back Paul to the truth.
1 We can determine this date, because we know that of the death of Firmilian,
and of Dionysius of Rome: the latter died 26th December 267. Cf. Lumper,
Hist. Theol. xiii. 714 sq. ; and Pagi, Critica in Annal. Buron. ad ann. 271,
No. 2.
3 Athan. de Synodis, n. 43, vol. i. P. ii. p. 605, ed. Patay. ; Hilar. Pictav.
ale Synodis, τι. 86, p.. 1200.
* In the acts of the Synod of Ephesus, Hard. lc. i. 1335.
4 In Hard. Le. v. 1498 ; and Mansi, Jc, i. 1099.
, * Euseb. Hist. Heel. vii: 30.
* In the Bibl. maxima PP., Lugdun., ix. 196, 703 ; and in Mansi, ἴ. 6. i. 1102,
122 . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
In these disputations Paul of Samosata was convicted of
error. The Council deposed him, excommunicated him," and
chose in his place Domnus, son of his predecessor Demetrian
Bishop of Antioch. Before dissolving itself, the Council sent
to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, to Maximus of Alexandria, and
to the bishops of all the provinces, an encyclical letter, which
we still possess in greater part, in which was an account of
the errors and manners of Paul of Samosata, as well as of the
deliberations of the Council respecting him.” It is there said,
“that Paul, who was very poor at first, had acquired great
riches by illegal proceedings, by extortions and frauds, pro-
fessedly promising his protection in lawsuits, and then de-
ceiving those who had paid him. Besides, he was extremely
proud and arrogant: he had accepted worldly employments,
and preferred to be called ducenarius rather than bishop ;* he
always went out surrounded by a train of servants. He was
reproached with having, out of vanity, read and dictated letters
while walking; with having, by his pride, caused much evil
to be said of Christians; with having had a raised throne
made for him in the church; with acting in a theatrical
manner—striking his thigh, spurning things with his foot,
persecuting and scorning those who during his sermons did
not join with the clappers of hands bribed to applaud him ;
with having spoken disparagingly of the greatest doctors of
the Church, and with applause of himself; with having sup-
pressed the Psalms in honour of Christ, under the pretext that
they were of recent origin, to substitute for them at the feast
of Easter hymns sung by women in his honour; with having
caused himself to be praised in the sermons of his partisans,
priests and chorepiscopi. The letter further declared that
1 Baronius says, ad ann. 265, n. 10, that Paul of Samosata had been con-
demned before by a synod at Rome under Pope Dionysius. He was deceived by
the ancient and false Latin translation of Athan. de Synodis, ο. 48.
2 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30; in Mansi, Uc. t. i. p. 1095, and Hard. lc.
t. i. p. 195. According to S. Jerome, Catal. Script. eccles. c. 71, the priest
Malchion edited this synodical letter. In Euseb. l.c. we also read at the head
of this letter the name of one Malchion, but side by side with other names of
the bishops, so that it is deubtful whether this Malchion is the priest of whom
we are speaking, or a bishop of that name.
9 The functionaries were thus named who annually claimed a revenue of ducenta
erstertit,
SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 123
he had denied that the Son of God descended from heaven,
but that he personally had allowed himself to be called an
angel come from on high; that, besides, he had lived with
the subintroducte, and had allowed the same to his clergy.
If he could not be reproached with positive immorality, he
had at least caused much scandal. Finally, he had fallen into
the heresy of Artemon ; and the Synod had thought it suffi-
cient to proceed only on this last point. They had therefore
excommunicated Paul, and elected Domnus in his place. The
Synod prayed all the bishops to exchange the litteras com-
municatorias with Domnus, whilst Paul, if he wished, could
write to Artemon.’ It is with this ironical observation that
the great fragment of the synodical letter preserved by Euse-
bius terminates. It is thought that in Leontius of Byzantium?
are to be found some more fragments of this letter treating of
Paul’s doctrine. Much more important is an ancient tradition,
that the Synod of Antioch must have rejected the expression
ὁμοούσιος. This is, at least, what semi-Arians have main-
tained; whilst S. Athanasius says “ that he had not the synodica:
letter of the Council of Antioch before his eyes, but that the
semi-Arians had maintained, in their Synod of Ancyra of 358,
that this letter denied that the Son was ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί; ὃ
What the semi-Arians affirmed is also reported by Basil the
Great and Hilary of Poitiers. Thus it is impossible to main-
tain the hypothesis of many learned men, viz. that the semi-
Arians had falsified the fact, and that there was nothing true
about the rejection of the expression ὁμοούσιος by the Synod
of Antioch. The original documents do not, however, show us
why this Synod of Antioch rejected the word ὁμοούσιος - and
we are thrown upon conjectures for this point.
Athanasius says* that Paul argued in this way: If Christ,
from being a man, did not become God—that is to say, if He
were not a man deified—then He is ὁμοούσιος with the Father;
but then three substances (οὐσίαι) must be admitted—one first
substance (the Father), and two more recent (the Son and the
1 Kuseb. vii. 22.
2 Mansi, i. 1102.
= Athan. de Synodis, c. 43; Opp. t. i. P. ii. p. 604, ed. Patay.
* De Synodis, ο, 45.
124 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Spirit); that is to say, that the divine substance is separated
into three parts.
In this case Paul must have used the word ὁμοούσιος in
that false sense which afterwards many Arians attributed to
the orthodox: in his mind ὁμοούσιος must have signified the
possessor of a part of the divine substance, which is not the
natural sense of the word. Then, as Paul abused this expres-
sion, it may be that for this reason the Synod of Antioch
should absolutely forbid the use of the word ὁμοούσιος. Per-
haps Paul also maintained that the ὁμοούσιος answered much
better to his doctrine than to that of the orthodox: for he
could easily name as ὁμοούσιος with the Father, the divine
virtue which came down upon the man Jesus, since according
to him this virtue was in no way distinct from the Father;
and in this case, again, the Synod would have sufficient ground
for rejecting this expression.'
These explanations would be without any use if the two
creeds which were formerly attributed to this Council of
Antioch really proceeded from it. In these creeds the word
ὁμοούσιος is not only adopted, but great stress is laid upon it.
The two creeds also have expressions evidently imitated from
the Nicene Creed,—a fact which shows that they could not
have proceeded from the Synod of Antioch. If in 269 such
a profession of faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity had
been written at Antioch, the Fathers of Nica would have
had much easier work to do, or rather Arianism would not
hhave been possible.
We have already said that the synodical letter of the
Council of Antioch was addressed to Dionysius Bishop of
Rome. The Synod did not know that this Pope died in the
month of December 269: thus the letter was given to his
1Cf. the dissertation by Dr. Frohschammer, ‘‘iiber die Verwerfung des
ὁμοούσιος," in the Tiibing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1850, Heft 1.
2 One is found in a document against Nestorius among the acts of the Council
of Ephesus, Hard. i. 1271; Mansi, iv. 1010. It contains a comparison between
Paul of Samosata and Nestorius. The second creed—said to be of Antioch, and
directed against Paul of Samosata—is also found among the acts of the Synod
of Ephesus, in Mansi, v. 175; Hard. i. 1639; in Hahn, Biblioth. der Symbole,
8S. 129 ff. Cf. on this point, Lumper, Hist. Theol. Crit. xiii. 723, 726, Not.
m; Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd 11, 8. 119.
SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA, 1
a)
successor, Felix 1, who! wrote immediately to Bishop Maximus
and the clergy of Alexandria to define the orthodox faith of
the Church with greater clearness against the errors of Paul
of Samosata.”
Paul continued to live in the episcopal palace, notwith-
standing his deposition, being probably supported by Zenobia ;
and he thus obliged the orthodox to appeal to the Emperor
Aurelian after this prince had conquered Zenobia and taker
Antioch in 272. The Emperor decided that “he should
occupy the episcopal house at Antioch who was in connection
with the bishops of Italy and the see of Rome.” Paul was
then obliged to leave his palace with disgrace, as Eusebius
relates.®
We have up to this time spoken of three Synods of Antioch,
all of them held with reference to Paul of Samosata; but a
certain number of historians* will admit only two, as we
think, wrongly.” The synodical letter of the last Council of
Antioch says distinctly that Firmilian went twice on this
account to Antioch, and that on his third journey to be pre-
sent at a new synod, consequently at a third, he died® As
the synodical letter is the most trustworthy source which can
be quoted in this case, we ought to prefer its testimony to
Theodoret’s account, who mentions only two Synods of Antioch.”
As for Eusebius, whose authority has been quoted, it is true
that he first mentions * only one synod, then in the following
chapter another Synod of Antioch; but this other he does
not call the second—he calls it the Just. What he says in
the twenty-seventh chapter shows that he united into one
only the first and second Synods. “The bishops,” he says,
“assembled often, and at different periods.” But even if
Eusebius had spoken of only two synods, his testimony would
evidently be of less value than the synodical letter.
It is with these Synods of Antioch that the councils of
the third century terminate. Zhe Libellus Synodicus® cer-
1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30 in fin. ? Mansi, i. 1114.
3 Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. 4 e.g. Lumper, lc. p. 708, Not. x.
ὅ Cf. Remi Ceillier, Uc. p. 599; and Walch, Hist. der Kirchenversamml. ἃ. 118.
6 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. 7 Heret. fabule, lib. ii. ο. 8.
8 Lib, vii. 28, In Hard. ν. 1498; Mansi, i. 1128.
126 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
tainly mentions another synod held in Mesopotamia; but it
was only a religious conference between Archelaus Bishop of
Carchara (or, more correctly, Caschara) in Mesopotamia, and
the heretic Manes.’ As for the pretended Eastern Synod in
the year 300, in which the patriarchs of Rome, of Constanti-
nople (an evident anachronism), of Antioch, and of Alexandria,
are said to have granted to the Bishop of Seleucia the dignity
of patriarch of the whole of Persia, it is a pure invention.
1 The acts of this discussion have been given by Zacagni in his Collectanea
Monumentorum Veteris Ecclesie; they are found in Mansi, i. 1129-1226. A
fragment of this discussion is also found in the Sixth Catechesis of S. Cyril of
Jersualem ; Mansi, /.c. p. 1226. On the authenticity of these acts, cf. Mosheim,
Commentar. de rebus Christianorum ante Constant. M. p. 729.
® Mansi, i. 1245.
CHAPTER III.
THE SYNODS OF THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS OF THE FOURTH
CENTURY.
Sec. 10. Pretended Synod of Sinuessa (30 9).
F the document which tells us of a Synod of Sinuessa
(situated between Rome and Capua) could have any
pretension to authenticity, this Synod must have taken place
about the beginning of the fourth century, in 303. It says:
The Emperor Diocletian had pressed Marcellinus Bishop of
Rome to sacrifice to the gods. At first stedfast, the bishop
had finally allowed himself to be dragged into the temple
of Vesta and of Isis, and there offered incense to the idols.
He was followed by three priests and two deacons, who
fled the moment he entered the temple, and spread the re-
port that they had seen Marcellinus sacrificing to the gods.
A Synod assembled, and Marcellinus denied the fact. The
inquiry was continued in a crypt near Sinuessa, on account
of the persecution. There were assembled many priests, no
fewer than three hundred bishops; a number quite impossible
for that country, and in a time of persecution. ‘They first
of all condemned the three priests and the two deacons for
having abandoned their bishop. As for the latter, although
sixty-two witnesses had sworn against him, the Synod would
not pronounce judgment: it simply demanded that he should
confess his fault, and judge himself; or, if he was not guilty,
that he should pronounce his own acquittal. On the morrow
fresh witness arose against Marcellinus. He denied again.
The third day the three hundred bishops assembled, once
more condemned the three priests and the two deacons, called
up the witnesses again, and charged Marcellinus in God's
1 Inserted in Mansi, Collect. Concil. i. 1250 sq. ; Hard. Coll. i. 217 544.
127
128 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
name to speak the truth. He then threw himself on the
ground, and covering his head with ashes, loudly and re-
peatedly acknowledged his sin, adding that he had allowed
himself to be bribed by gold. The bishops, in pronouncing
judgment, formally added: Marcellinus has condemned him-
self, for the occupant of the highest see cannot be judged by
any one (prima sedes non judicatur a quoquam). The conse-
quence of this Synod was, that Diocletian caused many bishops
who were present at it to be put to death, even Pope Mar-
cellinus himself, on the 23d of August 303.
This account is so filled with improbabilities and evidently
false dates, that in modern times Roman Catholics and Pro-
testants have unanimously rejected the authenticity of it.
Before that, some Roman Catholics were not unwilling to
appeal to this document, on account of the proposition, prima
sedes non gudicatur a quoquam. The Roman breviary itself has
admitted the account of Marcellinus’ weakness, and of the
sacrifice offered by him.’ But it is beyond all doubt that this
document is an amplification of the falsehood spread by the
Donatists about the year 400. They maintain that during
Diocletian’s persecution Marcellinus had delivered up the Holy
Scriptures, and sacrificed to the idols,—a falsehood which
Augustine and Theodoret had already refuted.”
SEC. 11. Synod of Cirta (305).
If the Donatists have invented the Synod of Sinuessa,
which never took place, they have, on the other hand, con-
tested the existence of a Council which was certainly held in
305 at Cirta in Numidia. This Synod took place on the ~
occasion of the installation of a new bishop of this town.?
1 Nocturn. ii. 26th April.
2 Augustine, De unico Baptismo contra Petilianum, ec. 16; Theodoret, List.
Eccl. lib. i. ο. 3. Details respecting the spuriousness of this document, and
upon this whole question, are to be found in Pagi, Crit. in Annales Baronii,
ad ann. 302, n. 18; Papebroch, in the Acta sanct. in Propyl. Mag. vol. viii. ;
Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. iii. diss. xx. vol. iv. p. 185, ed. Venet. 1778 ;
Remi Ceillier, Hist. des auteurs sacrés, t. iii. p. 681. Sec, for Protestant
authors, Bower, Gesch. d. Papste, Bd. i. 8. 68 ff. ; Walch, Hist. d. Papste, 8.
68 {f. ; JTZist. der Kirchenvers. ὃ, 126.
* Now Constantine.
SYNOD OF CIRTA. 129
Secundus Bishop of Tigisium, the oldest of the eleven bishops
present, presided over the assembly. A short time before,
an edict of Diocletian had enacted that the sacred writings
should be given up; and a multitude of Christians, and even
bishops, had proved weak, and had obeyed the edict. Most of
the bishops present at Cirta were accused of this fall ; so that
the president could say to almost all of them, when question-
ing them according to their rank, Dicitur te tradidisse. They
acknowledged themselves to be guilty, adding, one that God
had preserved him from sacrificing to the idols (which would
have been doubtless a much greater fall) ; another, that in-
stead of the sacred books he had given up books of medicine ;
a third, that he had been forced by violence, and so forth.
All implored grace and pardon. The president then demanded
of Purpurius Bishop of Limata, if it was true that he had
killed two of his nephews. The latter answered, “Do you
think you can terrify me like the others? What did you do
then yourself, when the curator commanded you to give up
the Holy Scriptures?” This was to reproach him with the
crime for which he was prosecuting the others; and the pre-
sident’s own nephew, Secundus the younger, addressed his
uncle in these words: “Do you hear what he says of you ?
He is ready to leave the Synod, and to create a schism: he
will have with him all those whom you wish to punish, and
I know that they have reasons for condemning you.” The
president asked counsel from some of the bishops: they per-
suaded him to decide that “each one should render an account
to God of his conduct in this matter (whether he had given
up the Holy Scriptures or not).” All were of the same opinion,
and shouted, Deo gratias !
This is what is told us in the fragment of the synodical
acts preserved by S. Augustine in the third book of his work
against the Donatist Cresconius.! We also learn from this
fragment, that the Synod was held in a private house belong-
ing to Urbanus Donatus, during the eighth consulate of Dio-
cletian and the seventh of Maximian, ye is to say, in 303,
Optatus of Mileve,? on the other hand, gives to this Donatus
the surname of Carisius, and tells us that they chose a private
1 Contra Cresc. ¢. 27. 3 Hist. Donatist. lib, i,
I
130 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
house because the churches of the town had not yet been
restored since the persecution. As for the chronological
question, S. Augustine says in another place, that the copy of
the synodical acts, which was carefully examined on occasion
of the religious conference of Carthage with the Donatists,
was thus dated: post consulatwm Diocletiant novies et Maxi-
miani octies, tertio nonas Martis,\ that is to say, March 5, 305.
That is, in fact, the exact date, as Valesius has proved in
his notes upon the eighth book of the History of the Church.
by Eusebius, ch. 2. Natalis Alexander has also written a
special dissertation upon this subject in his History of the
Church.
When the affair respecting the bishops who had yielded up
the Holy Scriptures had been decided, they proceeded to the
election of the new Bishop of Cirta. The bishops nominated
the deacon Silvanus, although, as is proved by a fragment of
the acts preserved by S. Augustine,’ he had delivered up the
sacred books in 303, together with his bishop Paul. This
Silvanus and some others among the bishops assembled at
Cirta, after having been so indulgent towards themselves,
afterwards became the chiefs of the rigorous and exaggerated
party of the Donatists, who saw traditores everywhere, even
where there were none.
Src. 12. Synod of Alexandria (306).
Almost at the same period, perhaps a year’ later, a synod
was held at Alexandria, under the presidency of Peter, then
archbishop of that place. The Bishop of Lycopolis, Meletius,
author of the Meletian schism, was, as 8. Athanasius tells us,
deposed by this Synod for different offences; and among others,
1 Augustine, Breviculus collationis ὁ. Donatistis, collat. diet Illtie, ce. 17,
n. 32, viii. 648, ed. Migne.
2 Hist. Eccles. sec. iv. diss. ii. 340, ed. Venct. 1778.
3 Contra Cres. lib. iii. c. 29. Baronius, ad ann. 303, n. 6, concludes from
this fragment that the Synod of Cirta first elected Paul as bishop of that place.
Baronius had, in fact, remarked that Paul had yielded up the Holy Scriptures
in 303, being then Bishop of Cirta. But he is mistaken in supposing that this
Synod had taken place in the spring of 303. The passage from the document
preserved by Augustine, contra Crescon. iii. 29, ought to have proved to him
that Paul was already Bishop of Cirta when the persecution began, consequently
before the assembling of the Synod,
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 131
for having sacrificed to idols. These last words show that
this Synod took place after the outbreak of Diocletian’s per-
secution, consequently after 303. S. Athanasius further adds,
in his Lpistola ad episcopos: “ The Meletians were declared
schismatics more than fifty-five years ago.” This letter having
been written in 356 or in 361, the latter date would give
the year 306 as that of the Synod; and this is the date which
we adopt. For on the other hypothesis (reckoning from the
year 356) we should be brought to 301, when the persecu-
tion of Diocletian had not begun.?
To the beginning of the fourth century belongs the
SEC. 13. Synod of Elvira (305 or 306).
This Synod has been, more than any other, an occasion for
many learned researches and controversies. The principal
work on the subject is that by the Spaniard Ferdinand de
Mendoza, in 1593; it comprises three books, the title of which
is, de confirmando concilio Iiliberitano ad Clementem v2 The.
best text of the acts of this Council is found in the Collectio
canonum Ecclesie Hispance, by Franc. Ant. Gonzalez, librarian
(Madrid 1808, in folio). It was compiled from nine ancient
Spanish manuscripts. Bruns has reproduced it in his Biblioth.
eccles.*
Pliny the elder speaks of two towns named Illiberis: the
one in Gallia Narbonensis, which is now called Collioure, in
Roussillon (now French) ; the other in the south of Spain, in
the province Beetica, now Andalusia® As it is a Spanish
council, there can be no question but that it was the latter
town, as Jlliberis in Narbonne had been demolished long
before the time of Constantine the Great. Mendoza relates,
that in his day the remains of walls bearing the name of
Elbira might still be seen on a mountain not far from Granada ;
and the gate of Granada, situated in this direction, is called
the gate of Elbira.® There is also another Eliberis, but it
1 Athanas. Apolog. cont. Arian. c. 59, vol. i. P. i. Ῥ. 140, ed. Patav. -
* Upon this question of chronology, and upon the Meletian schism, cf. a dis-
sertation by Dr. Hefele in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bad. vii.
S. 38. Dom Ceillier adopts the year 301, Hist., ete., iii. 678.
3 Mansi, Collect. Cone. ii. 57-397. * Vol; i P. il. ps-E ae
5 Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. iti. c. 1, 4. § Mendoza in Mansi, p. 58.
532 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
dates only from the conquest of the Goths. Tliberris, with
a double ὦ and a double 7, is the true one, according to
Mendoza.’
The synodical acts, whose genuineness could be doubted
only by hypercriticism,? mention nineteen bishops as present
at the Council. According to a Codex Pithdéanus of its acts,
their number must have reached forty-three. The nineteen
are: Felix of Acci (Cadiz), who, probably as being the eldest,
was nominated president of the Synod ; Hosius® of Corduba,
afterwards so famous in the Arian controversy as Bishop
of Cordova; Sabinus of Hispalis (Seville), Camerismus of
Tucci, Sinaginis of Epagra (or Bigerra), Secundinus of Castulo,
Pardus of Mentesa, Flavian of Eliberis, Cantonius of Urci,
Liberius of Emerita, Valerius of Czesaraugusta (Saragossa),
Decentius of Legio (Leon), Melantius of Toledo, Januarius of
Fibularia (perhaps Salaria in Hispania Tarraconensis), Vincent
of Ossonoba, Quintianus of Elbora, Successus of Eliocroca,
Eutychian of Basti (Baza), and Patricius of Malacca. There
were therefore bishops from the most different parts of Spain ;
so that we may consider this assembly as a synod representing
the whole of Spain. The acts also mention twenty-four
priests, and say that they were seated at the Synod like the
bishops, whilst the deacons and the laity stood up. The
decrees proceeded only from the bishops; for the synodical
acts always employed this formula: EpIscoPl universe dixerunt.
1. As for the date of this Synod, the acts tell us that it was
celebrated, which means opened, at the Ides of May; that
is, on the 15th May. The inscriptions on the acts also give
the following particulars: Constantii temporibus editum, codem
tempore quo et Nicena synodus habita est. Some of the acts
add: era 362.*
Of course it refers to the Spanish era, which began to be
used in Spain in the fifth century: it counted from the
1 Mendoza in Mansi, pp. 58, 59.
5 Doubts have been raised, especially by Berardi (Gradiani Canones genuini
ab apocryphis discreti, etc., i. 24, ed. Taurin. 1752) and by Marcellin Mol-
kenbuhr (Diss. critica de concil. Trullano Eliberitano, c. Monast. 1791). Cf
Katholik, 1819, Bd. ii. 8. 419.
3 Or Osius.
‘ Bibliotheca Eccles. ed. Bruns, vol. i. P. ii. pp. 1, 2; Mansi, Coilect. conc. ii. 1.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 134
thirty-eighth year before Christ, so that the year 362 of the
Spanish era corresponds to 324 of our reckoning." This date
of 324 answers to that of the Council of Nicza (325), also
mentioned in the inscription on the synodical acts; but the
tempore Constantii does not agree with it, at least unless we
should read Constantini. But there are very strong objections
against this chronological reading.
a. Most of the ancient manuscripts of these synodical acts
do not bear any date: one would therefore be led to conclude
that this had been added at a later time.”
b. Bishop Hosius of Corduba, named among the bishops
present at the Synod, was not in Spain in 324: he passed
the whole of that year either at the Emperor’s court (in Nico-
media) or at Alexandria. Constantine the Great, with whom
he was,® after the defeat of Licinius, consequently in the.
autumn of 323 or in the spring of 324, sent him to that:
place in order to try to settle the Arian strife. Hosius not.
being able to succeed in his mission, returned to the Emperor
as counsellor on ecclesiastical matters, and immediately after-
wards he took part in the first G@icumenical Council of Nicza,.
in 325.4
c. A long time previous to 323 and 324 Hosius had left
Spain, and he generally resided with the Emperor. It is
known’ that after the close of the Council of Arles, in 314,
the Donatists appealed from the judgment of the Council to.
the Emperor Constantine the Great. The sentence given by the
Emperor in 316 having been against them, they spread the
report that it was Hosius of Cordova who had influenced the-
Emperor in his judgment. Augustine, in relating this fact,
adds that Hosius had, on the contrary, suggested to the Emperor
more moderate measures than the Donatists deserved.® Hosius
was then at the imperial court, at the latest, in 816: a decree
1Cf. the article “ra, by Dr. Hefele, Kirchenlex. of Wetzer u. Welte, Bd. i.
S. 115,
2 Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, U.c. 66, 78 ; and Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccles. see. 11],
diss. 21, art. i. p. 136, vol. iv, ed. Venet. 1778.
3 Sozom. Hist. Eccles. i. 16, and Euseb. Vita Const. ii. 63.
4Cf. Tiibing. Quartalschrift, 1851, S. 221 sq.
5 Cf. in the Kirchenlex. Dr. Hefele’s article on the Donatists, Bu. iii. S. 257,
4 Ang. contra Parmenian. lib. i. c. 8, ix. 48, ed. Migne.
134 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
which Constantine addressed to Cecilian Bishop of Carthage
in 313, and in which he mentions Hosius, would even lead us
to conclude that the Spanish bishop was with Constantine
in 1313!
d. We must also notice, that the purport of several canons
of Elvira cannot agree with this date of 324.
(a.) Several of these canons appear, indeed, to have been
compiled during or soon after a violent persecution, in which
several Christians had apostatized. We say during, or soon
after ; but it is more likely that it was soon after: for during
a persecution, bishops from the most distant provinces of
Spain, from the north and the south, could hardly assemble
in the same place. Now the last persecution of the Spanish
Christians by the Emperors was that of Diocletian and of
Maximianus Herculeus, from 303 to 305.
(8.) The decisions of Elvira about the /apsi are much more
rigorous than those of Nica: thus the first canon of Elvira
forbids that the holy communion should be administered to the
lapst, even in articulo mortis. This severity evidently indicates
a date prior to that of the Synod of Nicza. Such severity
during a persecution, or immediately after, could be explained,
but not so twenty years later.
2. It was indeed this severity of the canons of Elvira with
regard to the lwpst which suggested to the oratorian Morinus
the hypothesis which he propounds in his book de Penitentia?
viz. that the Synod of Elvira must have assembled before the
origin of the Novatian schism, about 250; otherwise the
Fathers of Elvira, by their first canon, must have taken the
side of the Novatians. But the severity of the Novatians is
very different from that of the Synod of Elvira. The Nova-
tians pretended that the Church had not the r7ght to admit to
the communion a Christian who had apostatized: the Fathers
of Elvira acknowledged this right; they wished only that in
certain cases, for reasons of discipline, she should suspend the
exercise of this right, and delay the admission, non despera-
tione venice, sed rigore discipline. We must add, that about
1 Τὴ Niceph. Hist. Eccles. vii. 42, quoted by Mendoza, l.c. p. 68.
5 Lib. ix. c. 19.
® Nat. Alex. l.c. Propos. ii. 187, 145, nota; and Migne, Dictionnaire, i. 813%
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 135
250 Hosius and the other bishops present at the Council of
Iilvira were not yet born, or at any rate they were not among
the clergy.
3. The hypothesis of the Magdeburg Centuriators, which
places the Synod of Elvira in the year 700, is still more
unfortunate. To give such dates, is to make Hosius and his
colleagues of Elvira into true Methuselahs of the new cove-
nant.
4, Following the Fast: of Onuphrius, Hardouin has adopted
the date 313, giving especially as his reason, that the canons
of the as aii of Arles in 314 have much in common with
those of Elvira. But this is extremely feeble reasoning ; for
they might easily profit by the canons of Elvira at Arles, even
if they were framed ten or twenty years previously. Besides,
Hosius, as we have seen above, appears to have left his native
country, Spain, in 313.1
_ 5, Baluze has propounded another theory. At the Council
of Sardica (eleventh canon in Greek, fourteenth canon in
Latin), Hosius proposed a law (on the subject of the Sunday
festival), which had been before proposed in a former council
(superiore concilio). This is an allusion to the twenty-first
canon of the Council of Elvira. Baluze remarks, that since
Hosius calls the Council of Elvira swperius conciliwm, this
Council must have taken place before the Council of Nicza,
which, with Hosius, when the Council of Sardica was held,
was only the concilium postremum. The reasoning of Baluze
can be maintained up to this point; but afterwards, from
some other indications, he wishes to conclude that the Synod
of Elvira took place after those of Ancyra and of Neo-
caesarea ; consequently between 314 and 325.2 This latter
part of his proof is very feeble; and besides, he has en-
tirely forgotten that Hosius was not in Spain between 314
and 325.
6. Mansi thinks that the Synod of Elvira took place in
309. 10 is said in the acts, he remarks, that the Council
was held in the Ides of May. Now in 309 these Ides fell on
a Sunday ; and at this period they began to hold EE on a
ἢ of tne note by Baluze in Mansi, 1.6. p. 1, not.
? Mansi, /.c. p. 3, note.
136 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Sunday, as the example of Niczea shows.’ This last observa-
tion is not exact. The Council of Niceea requires in the
fifth canon, that two synods should be celebrated annually,—
one during Lent, the other in the autumn; but there is no-
where any mention of Sunday. The apostolic canons, No. 36
(38), give the same meaning: “ The first synod shall be neld
in the fourth week after Pentecost; the second on the 12th
of the month Hyperberataios.” Here also, then, there is no
mention of Sunday; the 12th of the month Hyperberataios
might fall upon any day of the week. In the statutes of the
Synod of Antioch in 341, Sunday is not prescribed more than
any. other day.
7. The calculation of Mendoza, of Natalis Alexander, of
Tillemont, of d’Aguirre, of Rémi Ceillier, etc.? appears to us
more defensible: they all proceed upon the fact that Valerius
Bishop of Saragossa, who, we know from the acts, was present
at the Synod, was persecuted in 304, with his deacon Vincent,
by the Roman pretor Dacian. The deacon was put to death,
and Valerius exiled ;° afterwards he also was martyred, if we
may believe an ancient tradition. They concluded from this,
that the Council of Elvira could not have taken place before
904, that is to say, before the arrest of Bishop Valerius ; and
they only disagreed upon the point whether the Council took
place at the commencement of the year 300 or 301: d’Aguirre
even mentions the commencement of 303. The difficulty is,
that they place the Council of Elvira before the outbreak of
1Cf. Mansi, note upon Alex. Nat. Hist. Eccles. l.c. p. 189, and his Coll.
Concil. ii. 22.
2 Mendoza in Mansi, Coll. Concil. ii. 69, 73; Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccles. sec. iii.
diss. 21, p. 138, ed. Venet. 1778 ; Tillemont, Mémoires, etc., vol. vii. in the
article Osius, pp. 137, 333, ed. Brux. 1732 ; Aguirr. Concil. Hispan. i. 240 sq.,
ii. 1 ; Ceillier, Hist. des auteurs sacrés, 111. 657. See above, p. 132.
3 See the Acta δ. Vincentii, in Ruinart, ed. Galura, ii. 343. We might be
surprised that there should be executions of Christians in Spain at this time,
since this province formed part of the empire of Cesar Constantius. But al-
though Constantius was personally favourable to the Christians, he was obliged
to conform to the Emperor’s commands, as he was only the second personage in
the empire. Besides, he did not reside in Spain, but in Gaul ; and it was only
in Gaul, says Eusebius, that the Christians were spared, whilst in Spain and
in Britain the subordinate governors ordered the persecutions. Cf. Tillemont,
Mémoires, etc., vol. v., Persecution of Diocletian, art. xxi. and not. xxii. pp.
25, 26, ed. Brux. 1782.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. ἘΠῚ
the persecution ; whilst, as has been said before, several of the
canons were evidently written just after a persecution, and
consequently could not have been promulgated between 300
and 304,
8. The opinion, then, which appears to us the most probable
on this question, is the following: In May 305 Diocletian and
Maximianus Herculeus had abdicated ; and Constantius, cele-
brated for his benevolence towards the Christians, became
sovereign ruler of Spain. The persecution, therefore, having
ceased, the Spanish bishops could assemble at Elvira to deli-
berate, first, respecting the treatment of the Jlapsi, which
was the chief subject of the canons which they formed, and
also to seek for means against the invasion of moral cor-
ruption.
But it will be said, Was not Valerius of Saragossa dead in
305? Ido not think so. To prove it, Remi Ceillier’ appeals
to Prudentius ; but the latter does not say a word of the mar-
tyrdom of Valerius, either in his poem upon all the martyrs
of Saragossa in general, or in his poem upon Vincent in par-
ticular. If Valerius had really been martyred, he would cer-
tainly not have failed to say so.” Then, if Valerius was living
at the time of the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, he
was undoubtedly recalled from exile by Constantius; and he
could thus take part in the Synod of Elvira, which we there-
fore place in the autumn of 305, or in 306. Baronius,®
Binius in Mansi,‘ and others, accept 305, but on other grounds
than ours, whilst Pagi® leaves the question undecided. The
2c. ps 657, not. αὶ
2 Prudent. Clemens, Peristeph. iv. passio xviii. Martyrum Cesaraugust., says,
v. 77, p. 220, ed. Obbarii :
** Inde, Vincenti, tua palma nata est,
Clerus hic tantum peperit triumphum ;
Hic sacerdotum domus infulata Valeriorum ;”
i.e. ** The clergy of Saragossa, the house of the Valerians (i.e. the followers of
the Bishop Valerius), were so stedfast, that they carried off this victory.” But
this does not prove that Valerius himself was executed. He participated in the
triumph by his exile. What Mendoza brings forward elsewhere in proof of the
martyrdom of Bishop Valerius, is taken from much later references and tradi-
tions, and therefore cannot be adduced as proof,
3 Ad ann. 305, 39 sq. * Vol. ii. p. 27.
5 Ad ann. 303, ἢ. 5.
138 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
eighty-one canons of the Synod of Elvira are the follow-
ing :— .
Can. 1. De his qui post baptismum idolis immolave-
runt.
Placuit inter nos: Qui post fidem baptismi salutaris adulta
setate ad templum idoli idololaturus accesserit et fecerit, quod
est crimen capitale, quia est summi sceleris, placuit nec in
finem eum communionem accipere.
“Tf an adult who has been baptized has entered an idol’s
temple, and has committed a capital crime, he cannot be
received into communion, even at the end of his life.”
Several interpreters of this canon, among others Dr. Herbst,
who has explained the canons of Elvira in the Z%binger Quar-
talschrift,, have erroneously thought that we must understand
here by convmunio, not eucharistic communion, but only com-
munion with the Church, or sacramental absolution. This is
a mistake: the word communio does not mean only communion
with the Church, but sacramental communion as well. If any
one is excluded from the Church, and if they cannot receive
sacramental absolution, neither can they receive the holy
Eucharist.
CAN. 2. De sacerdotibus gentiliwm qutr post baptismum immo-
laverunt.
Flamines, qui post fidem lavacri et regenerationis sacrifica-
verunt, eo quod geminaverint scelera accedente homicidio, vel
triplicaverint facinus cohserente meoechia, placuit eos nec in
finem accipere communionem.
Can. 3. De eisdem si idolis munus tantum dederunt.
Item flamines qui non immolaverint, sed munus tantum
dederint, eo quod se a funestis abstinuerint sacrificiis, placuit
in finem eis prestare communionem, acta tamen legitima
peenitentia. Item ipsi si post pcenitentiam fuerint mcechati,
1 See Mendoza, and the Bishop of Orleans, Gabriel de l’Aubespine. This
fragment is found in Mansi, ii. 35-55, 110-396. Herbst’s explanations have
been analysed and criticised in the dissertation by Binterim upon the Synod of
Elvira, in the Katholik of 1821, ii. 417-444.
9
eo)
ες SYNOD OF ELVIRA: - 1
placuit ulterius his non esse dandam communionem ne lusisse
de dominica communione videantur, .
Can. 4. De etsdem st catechument adhue immolant quando
baptizentur.
Item flamines si fuerint catechumeni et se ἃ sacrificiis
abstinuerint, post triennii tempora placuit ad baptismum ad-
mitti debere.
The office of a flamen in the provinces of the Roman Empire
consisted either in offering sacrifices to the gods, or in pre-
paring the public games. It was hereditary in many families ;
and as it entailed many expenses, he who was legally bound
to fill it could not give it up, even if he became a Chris-
tian, as is proved by. the Code of Justinian, and 8S. Jerome’s
work De Vita Hilarionis: It followed from this, that the
members of these families of flamines kept their office even
when they were catechumens or had been baptized; but they
tried to give up the duties which it imposed, especially the
sacrifices. They consented still to continue to prepare the
public games. In the time of a persecution, the people gene-
rally wished to oblige them to offer sacrifices also. This Synod
decided on what must be done with these flamines in the
different cases which might arise.
a. If they had been baptized, and if they had consented
to fulfil all their duties, they had by that act alone (a) sacri-
ficed to idols; (@) they had taken part in murders, by pre-
paring for the games (in the games of gladiators), and in acts
of immorality (in the obscene acts of certain plays).? Their
sin was therefore double and triple. Then they must be
refused the communion as long as they lived.
b. If they had been baptized, but if, without sacrificing,
they had only given the games, they might be received into
communion at the close of their life, provided that they should
1 Cf. Aubespine’s notes in Mansi, Z.c. Ὁ. 36.
* The 30th, 31st, and 72d canons prove, that with the Fathers of Elvira
mechia signified immorality in general, rather than adultery properly so called.
Also adulterare in the title of the 13th canon is not adultery in specie, but
debauchery in general, with this difference, that the sin of a virgin consecrated
to God might be called adultery towards God, to whom she had been ccnse-
erated, and to whom she had been wanting in fidelity.
140 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
have first submitted to a suitable penance. But if, after hav-
ing begun to do penance (that is the sense, and not after the
accomplishment of the penance), they should again be led into
any act of immorality (that is to say, if as flamines they should
allow themselves to organize obscene plays), they should never
more receive the communion.
c. If a flamen was only a catechumen, and if, without sacri-
ficing, he had fulfilled his duties (perhaps also given the games),
he might be baptized after three years of trial.’
Can. 5. δὲ domina per zelum ancillam occiderit.
Si qua foemina furore zeli accensa flagris verberaverit ancil-
lam suam, ita ut intra tertium diem animam cum cruciatu
effundat, eo quod incertum sit voluntate an casu occiderit; 5}
voluntate, post septem annos, si casu, post quinquennii tem-
pora, acta legitima pcenitentia, ad communionem placuit ad-
mitti; quod si intra tempora constituta fuerint infirmata,
accipiat communionem.
If, in anger, a woman should strike her servant, so that
the latter should die at the end of three days, the guilty
woman shall undergo a seven years’ penance if she struck so
violently on purpose, and a five years’ penance if she did not
do so on purpose to kill: she shall not be received into com-
munion till after this delay. If she should fall ill during
the time of her penance, she may receive the communion.
This canon was inserted in the Corpus juris can.
Can. 6. δὲ quicunque per maleficium hominem interfecerit.
Si quis vero maleficio interficiat alterum, eo quod sine idolo-
latria perficere scelus non potuit, nec in finem impertiendam
illi esse communionem.
By maleficio is here to be understood the deceits of magic
or sorcery, which they considered necessarily connected with
idolatry.
The following canon needs no explanation.
Can. 7. De penitentibus machie st rursus mechaverint.
Si quis forte fidelis post lapsum meechie, post tempora cons
1 Cf. canon 55. 2C. 43, dist. 1.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 141
stituta, acta peenitentia, denuo fuerit fornicatus, placuit nec in
finem habere eum communionem.
Can. 8. De faminis que relictis viris suis aliis nubunt.
Item foemine, que nulla precedente causa reliquerint viros
suos et alteris se copulaverint, nec in finem accipiant com-
munionem. |
Some interpreters have thought that the question here was
that only of a Christian woman leaving her husband, still a
pagan, without any reason; for wnder no pretext could she
leave a Christian husband to marry another. But the follow-
ing canon proves conclusively that the eighth canon speaks of
a Christian couple. If it adds without reason, that does not
mean that there exist any cases in which a woman could leave
her husband to marry another: the canon decrees only a more
severe punishment if she should abandon her husband without
reason; whilst the following canon prescribes what punish-
ment to inflict in case she should leave her husband not
entirely without a cause (if, for example, the husband is an
adulterer). |
The ninth canon, which has also been inserted in the Corpus
juris canon, is thus worded :—
Can. 9. De feminis que adulteros maritos relinquunt et aliis
nubunt.
Item fcemina fidelis, que adulterum maritum reliquerit
fidelem et alterum ducit, prohibeatur ne ducat; si duxerit, non
prius accipiat communionem, nisi quem reliquit de seculo
exicrit, nisi forsitan necessitas infirmitatis dare compulerit.
The following canons are much more difficult to explain.
CAN. 10. De relicta catechumeni st alterum duxertt.
Si ea quam catechumenus relinquit duxerit maritum, potest
ad fontem lavacri admitti: hoc et circa foeminas catechumenas
erit observandum. Quodsi fuerit fidelis que ducitur ab eo
1 Binterim thinks (1.6. p. 425) that sine causa means, “ without the previous
judgment of the bishop.”
3 0, 8, causa xxxii. q. 7.
142 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
qui uxorem inculpatam relinquit, et quum scierit illum habcre
uxorem, quam sine causa reliquit, placuit in finem hujusmodi
dari communionem.
CAN. 11. De catechumena si graviter cwegrotaverit.
Intra quinquennii autem tempora catechumena si’ graviter
fuerit infirmata, dandum ei baptismum placuit non denegari.
These two canons are difficult to explain, because the section
between the two does not occupy its proper place. They treat
of two quite different cases, and each of these cases is sub-
divided into two others. |
1. a. If a catechumen, without any cause, should leave his
wife, who has not yet been baptized, and if the latter should:
marry another husband, she may be baptized.
6. In the same way, if a female catechumen should, with-
out reason, leave her husband, still unbaptized, and he:
should marry again, he may be baptized.
Such is the first case. It supposes that the party who is
left without cause is not baptized. Here the tenth canon
should stop. What follows treats of another question, viz.
if the party who has unlawfully left the other can be married
again. The canon does not mention whether the party to be
_ married is baptized, or only a catechumen, and it establishes
the following :—
2. a. If a Christian woman marries a man whom she knows
to have illegally divorced his wife, she may communicate
only on her deathbed. As a Christian, she ought to have
known that, according to S. Paul} a Christian (and the cate-
chumen is here considered as such) cannot put away his
partner, though an unbeliever, if the latter wishes to continue
to live with him.
ὁ. If a female catechumen marries a man who has illegally
divorced his wife, her baptism shall be put off five years
longer (a further period of trial), and she can be baptized before
that time only in case of a serious illness.
We think we have thus clearly and ‘accurately explained
the sense of these two canons, which have given so much
trouble to commentators.
21 Cor vii. 12,
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. .; 143.
Cay. 12. De mulieribus que lenocinium fecerint.
Mater vel parens vel queelibet fidelis, si lenocinium exer-
cuerit, eo quod alienum vendiderit corpus vel potius suum,
placuit eam nec in finem accipere communionem.
We might have remarked on the two preceding canons, that
their titles are not quite adapted to their contents. It is the
same with this one. It threatens with perpetual excommuni-
cation those fathers and mothers who should give up their
children to prostitution, as well as all those who follow this
shameful trade. The words vel potius swum corpus, etc., how-
ever, evidently apply only to the parents of the young prosti-
tute: in fact, they sell their own flesh and blood in selling
their daughter.
CAN. 13. De virginibus Deo sacratis st adulteraverint.
Virgines que se Deo dicaverunt, si pactum perdiderint vir-
ginitatis atque eidem libidini servierint, non intelligentes quid
admiserint, placuit nec in finem eis dandam esse communionem.
Quod si semel persuasze aut infirmi corporis lapsu vitiate
omni tempore vite suze hujusmodi foemine egerint poenitentiam,
ut abstineant se a coitu, eo quod lapsze potius videantur, placuit
eas in finem communionem accipere debere.
When virgins consecrated to God (whether nuns properly
so called, or young girls who have consecrated their youth to
God, still remaining in their families) have committed a carnal
sin without acknowledging their offence, and so continuing
obstinately in their blindness (for it is thus that we must
understand non intelligentes quid admiscrint), they must remain
permanently excommunicated ; but if they should acknowledge
their sin, and do perpetual penance, without falling again, they
may receive the communion at the end of their life. This
canon was inserted in the Corpus juris can.
Can. 14. De virginibus secularibus st mechaverint.
Virgines que virginitatem suam non custodierint, si eosdem
qui eas violaverint duxerint et tenuerint maritos, eo quod solas
nuptias violaverint, post annum sine pcenitentia reconciliari
debebunt; vel si alios cognoverint viros, eo quod mcechate
1 Ὁ, 25, causa xxvii. g. 1. Cf. ο. 19 of the Synod of Ancyra.
144 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
sunt, placuit per quinquennii tempora, acta legitima pcenitentia,
admitti eas ad communionem oportere.
If a young girl who has taken no vows has committed a
carnal sin, and if she marries him with whom she has been
led away, she shall be reconciled at the end of one vear, with-
eut being condemned to penance; that is to say, she may
receive the communion at the end of one year, because she
has violated only the marriage law, the rights of which she
usurped before they were conferred upon her.
Some manuscripts read, post panitentiam unius anni recon-
cilientur ; that is to say, that one year’s penance should be
imposed upon her. The difference between this reading and
ours is not important, for our reading also imposes on the
guilty one minor excommunication for a year; that is to say,
privation of the communion, which we know was also a degree
of penance, namely, the fourth. The canon only exempts her
from the most severe degrees of excommunication, to which
were attached positive works of penance. The other reading
says nothing more. If this woman should marry any one
except him with whom she had fallen, she would commit a
sort of adultery, and ought to submit to five years of penance.
The three following canons forbid to marry pagans, Jews, or
heretics, and require no explanation :——
Can. 15. De conjugio corum qua ex gentilitate veniunt.
Propter copiam puellarum gentilibus minime in matri-
monium dande sunt virgines Christiane, ne etas in flore
éumens in adulterium anime resolvatur.
Can. 16. De puellis fidelibus ne infidelibus conjungantur.
Heeretici si se transferre noluerint ad Ecclesiam catholicam,
nec ipsis catholicas dandas esse puellas; sed neque Judzis
neque hereticis dare placuit, eo quod nulla possit esse societas
fideli cum infideli: si contra interdictum fecerint parentes,
abstineri per quinquennium placet.
Can. 17. De his qui filias suas sacerdotibus gentilium con-
jungunt.
Si qui forte sacerdotibus idolorum filias suas junxerint
placuit nec in finem iis dandam esse communionem.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 145
CAN. 18. De sacerdotibus et ministris st mechaverint.
Episcopi, presbyteres (!) et diacones si in ministerio positi
detecti fuerint quod sint meechati, placuit propter scandalum
et propter profanum crimen nec in finem eos communionem
accipere debere.
We must here, as in other places,’ understand by mechare,
not only adultery zn specie, but all fornication in general.
Can. 19. De clericis negotia et mundinas sectantibus.
Episcopi, presbyteres (!) et diacones de locis suis negotiandi
causa non discedant, nec circumeuntes provincias questuosas
nundinas sectentur: sane ad victum sibi conquirendum aut
filium aut libertum aut mercenarium aut amicum aut quem-
libet mittant, et si voluerint negotiari, intra provinciam nego-
tientur.
S. Cyprian,’ in his work de Lapsis, also complains that many
bishops left their churches and went into foreign provinces for
the sake of merchandise, and to give themselves up to trade.
Can. 20. De clericis et laicis usurarvs.
Si quis clericorum detectus fuerit usuras accipere, placuit
eum degradari et abstineri. Si quis etiam laicus accepisse
probatur usuras, et promiserit correptus jam se cassaturum nec
ulterius exacturum, placuit ei veniam tribui: si vero in ea
iniquitate duraverit, ab ecclesia esse projiciendum.’
When we consider the seventeenth Nicene canon, which
also forbids lending money at interest, we shall speak of the
judgment of the ancient Church on this matter. The first
part of our canon has been inserted by Gratian in the Corpus
juris canon.
Can. 21. De his qui tardius ad ecclesiam accedunt.
Si quis in civitate positus tres dominicas ad ecclesiam non
accesserit, pauco tempore abstineatur, ut correptus esse videatur.
As we have said before,” Hosius proposed and had passed 558.
the Council of Sardica a like statute against those who neglected
1 Cf. can. 2. 2P. 183, ed. Bened.
3 Cf. the art. by the author in the Τίμησον Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 405 ff.
*C. 5, dist. 47. 5 Pp, 135.
K
146 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
to go to church. It is the eleventh canon of the Greek and
the fourteenth of the Latin text of the decrees of Sardica.
Can. 22. De catholicis in heresim transeuntibus, st rever-
tantur.
Si quis de catholica Ecclesia ad heresim transitum fecerit
rursusque recurrerit, placuit huic pcoenitentiam non esse dene-
candam, eo quod cognoverit peccatum suum; qui etiam decem
annis agat pcenitentiam, cui post decem annos prestari com-
munio debet ; si vero infantes fuerint transducti, quod non suo
vitio peccaverint incunctanter recipi debent.
CAN. 23. De temporibus jejuniorum.
Jejunii superpositiones per singulos menses placuit celebrari,
exceptis diebus duorum mensium Julii et Augusti propter
quorumdam infirmitatem.
The superponere (ὑπερτίθεσθαι), or the superpositio (ὑπέρ-
θεσις), was an extension or prolongation of the fast beyond
the usual duration (until the evening).
Can. 24. De his qui in peregre baptizantur, ut ad clerum non
venrant.
Omnes qui in peregre fuerint baptizati, eo quod eorum
minime sit cognita vita, placuit ad clerum non esse promo-
vendos in alienis provinciis.
None could be admitted into the ranks of the clergy out of
the province in which he had been baptized. This canon
passed into the Corpus jur. can?
Can. 25. De epistolis communicatoriis confessorum.
Omnis qui attulerit literas confessorias, sublato nomine
confessoris, eo quod omnes sub hac nominis gloria pas-
sim concutiant simplices, communicatoriz ei dande sunt
litteree.
This canon has been interpreted in three ways. Mendoza,
Baronius, and others, when commenting upon it, thought of the
1 Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. v. Th. ii. S. 98; Bohmer, Christliche
Altcrthumswissenschaft, Bd. ii. S. 98.
2 C. 4, dist. 98.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 147
letters of peace (Jibelli pacis) which the martyrs and confessors
gave to the dapsi, to procure for them a speedy reception into
the Church. These libclli pacis, indeed, induced many bishops
to admit a lapsus too promptly ; ‘but our canon does not speak
of this abuse: it does not complain that these letters deceived
the bishops: it says, concutiant simplices. If the canon had
been intended to warn the bishops against these Jibelli pacis,
it would certainly not have said that they should give to the
lapsis communicatorias literas; for this was what was wrong,
that they were admitted too soon to communion. Aubespine’
and Herbst? were of the opinion that the canon had reference
to some Christians who, before going a journey, did not ask
for letters of communion from their bishop, but preferred
letters of recommendation given by their confessor, regarding
these as more important, and that this practice was forbidden
by one synod. This, again, is a mistake. The meaning of
the canon is this: “If a Christian, wishing to take a journey,
submits to his bishop the draught of a letter of recommenda-
tion, in which it is said that the bearer is a confessor, the
bishop must erase the word confessor, sublato nomine confessor is,
because many simple people are deceived by this title, and the
bishop shall give common letters communicatorias,” ὃ
Can. 26. Ut omni sabbato jejunetur.
Errorem placuit corrigi, ut omni sabbati die superpositiones
celebremus.
The meaning of this canon also is equivocal. The title
seems to imply that it orders a severe fast every Saturday,
and the suppression of the contrary practice followed up to
that time. It is thus explained by Garsias in Binius* and
Mendoza” However, as the sixty-fifth apostolic canon pre-
scribes that, except Holy Saturday, no Saturday should be a
fast-day, our canon may also mean, “The ancient error of
fasting strictly every Saturday must be abolished:” that is to
1 In Mansi, ii. 42. * Quartalsch. 1821, 8. 30.
3 Ci. Rémi Ceillier, 1. 6. p. 665; Migne, Dic. des Conciles, i. 820; and Dr.
Miinchen, **Abhandlung iiber das erste Concil von Arles” (dissertation upon
the first Council of Arles), in the Bonner Zeitschrift Sir Philosophie u. Theologie,
Heft 27, S. 51 ff. :
* Mansi, ii. 31. 5 ibid. p.° 227.
148 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
say, the swperpositio is ordered only for Holy Saturday ; and for
other Saturdays, as for Fridays, the statio only, that is to say,
the half-fast is ordered. But in comparing this canon with
the forty-third, where the same expressions are again found,
we see that the wt determines what was to be henceforth
observed, and not in what the error consisted. According to
that, our decree would mean that the swperpositio must be
observed every Saturday, and we must adopt the explanation
of Garsias.
Can. 27. De clericis ut extraneas feminas in domo non
habeant.
Episcopus vel quilibet alius clericus aut sororem aut filiam
virginem dicatam Deo tantum sccum habeat; extraneam
nequaquam habere placuit.
This canon is more severe than the third similar canon of
the Council of Niceza. It allows the clergy to have with them
in their house (a) only their sisters, or their own daughters ;
(b) and also that these must be virgins, and consecrated to
God, that is, having vowed their virginity to God."
CAN. 28. De oblationibus eorum qui non communicant.
Episcopum placuit ab eo, qui non communicat, munus acci-
pere non debere.
In the same way as in the first canon, we must here under-
stand by those gui non communicant, Christians who, like peni-
tents or catechumens, are not in the communio (community),
and who therefore do not receive the holy Eucharist. The
meaning of the canon is: “The bishop cannot accept at the
altar the offerings (oblata) of those who do not communicate.”
Can. 29. De energumenis qualiter habeantur in ecclesia.
Energumenus qui ab erratico spiritu exagitur, hujus nomen
neque ad altare cum oblatione esse recitandum, nec permitten-
dum ut sua manu in ecclesia ministret.
This canon, like the seventy-eighth apostolic canon, excludes
demoniacs possessed by the evil spirit from active participation
in divine service: they cannot present any offerings; their
1 Cf, the nineteenth canon of Ancyra.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 149
mames cannot be read among those who are inscribed in the
<liptychs as offering the sacrifice (diptychis offerentiwm); and
they must not be permitted to hold any office in the Church."
CAN. 30. De his qui post lavacrum mechati sunt, ne subdia-
cones fiant.
Subdiaconos eos ordinari non debere qui in adolescentia sua
fuerint meechati, eo quod postmodum per subreptionem ad
altiorem gradum promoveantur: vel si qui sunt in preeteritum
ordinati, amoveantur.
Can. 31. De adolescentibus qui post lavacrum mechati sunt.
Adolescentes qui post fidem lavacri salutaris fuerint mcechati,
cum duxerint uxores, acta legitima pcenitentia placuit ad com-
munionem eos admitti.
These two canons need no explanation.
Can. 32. De excommunicatis presbyteris ut in necessitate
communionem dent.
Apud presbyterum, si quis gravi lapsu in ruinam mortis
inciderit, placuit agere pcenitentiam non debere, sed potius
apud episcopum : cogente tamen infirmitate necesse est pres-
byterem(!) communionem prestare debere, et diaconem si ei
jusserit sacerdos.
This canon is quite in conformity with the ancient custom,
according to which the bishop only, and not a priest, could
receive a penitent into the Church. It was only in a case of
extreme necessity that a priest, or, according to the orders of
a priest, a deacon, could give a penitent the communion, that
is, could administer to him the eucharistic bread in sign of
reconciliation: deacons often gave the communion in the
ancient Church.’ The title of the canon is evidently wrong,
and ought to be thus worded: De presbyteris ut excommuni-
catis in necessitate, etc. It is thus, indeed, that Mansi read it
in several manuscripts.
1 Cf. below, the thirty-seventh canon.
* Binterim (Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. 5. 482 f.) thus understands this canon:
“* Even in a case of urgent necessity, the priest only ought to give the com-
munion ; but if he asks it, the deacon may help him.”
150 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS
CAN. 33. De episcopis et ministris ut ab uxoribus abstineant.
Placuit in totum prohibere episcopis, presbyteris et diaconi-
bus vel omnibus clericis positis in ministerio abstinere se a
conjugibus suis et non generare filios: quicunque vero fecerit,
ab honore clericatus exterminetur.
This celebrated canon contains the most ancient command
of celibacy. The bishops, priests, and deacons, and in general
all the clergy, qui in ministerio positi sunt, that is, who are
specially employed in the service of the altar,’ ought no longer
to have any conjugal intercourse with their wives, under pain
of deposition, if they were married when they took orders.
The history of the Council of Nicwa will give us the oppor-
tunity of considering the question of celibacy in the primitive
Church. We will only add here, that the wording of our canon
is defective: prohibere abstinere ct non generare. The canon
seems to order what, on the contrary, it would prohibit, viz. :
“It is forbidden that the clergy should abstain from their
wives.” A similarly inexact expression is found in the
eightieth canon.
Can. 34. Ne ceret in cemetertis incendantur.
Cereos per diem placuit in coemeterio non incendi, inquie-
tandi enim sanctorum spiritus non sunt. Qui heec non obser-
vaverint arceantur ab Ecclesiee communione. , .
It is forbidden to light wax candles during the day in ceme-
teries, for fear of troubling the spirits of the saints. Garsias
thus explains this canon: “ for fear of troubling and distract-
ing the faithful, who pray in the cemeteries.” He thus makes
sanctt the synonym of faithful. Binterim has taken it in
the same sense :? sanctorwm with him is synonymous with
sancta agentium; and he translates it, “so that the priests
who fulfil their holy offices, may not be distracted.” Baronius,
on the contrary, says: “ Many neophytes brought the custom
from paganism, of lighting many wax candles upon tombs.
>
1 That this is the true meaning, is seen from the parallel passage of the
Council of Carthage of 390, c. ii., where it is said that bishops, priests, and
Levites, vel qui sacramentis divinis inserviunt, are pledged to celibacy. Hard.
i, 951.
3. Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 435.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. — 15:
The Synod forbids this, because metaphorically it troubles the
souls of the dead; that is to say, this superstition wounds
them.” Aubespine gives a fourth explanation. He begins.
with the supposition that the bishops of Elvira partook of the
opinion, then very general, that the souls of the dead hovered
over their tombs for some time. The Synod consequently
forbade that wax candles should be lighted by day, perhaps
to abolish a remnant of paganism, but also to prevent the
repose of the souls of the dead from being troubled."
Can. 55. Ne femine in cemeteriis pervigilent.
Placuit prohiberi ne foeminz in ccemeterio pervigilent, eo
quod spe sub obtentu orationis latenter scelera committunt.
CAN. 36. Ne picture in ecclesia fiant.
Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur
et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.
These canons are easy to understand: we have elsewhere
explained why the ancient Church did not tolerate images.”
Binterim and Aubespine do not believe in a complete ex-
clusion: they think that the Church in general, and the Synod.
of Elvira in particular, wished to proscribe only a certain kind.
of images. Binterim® believes that this Synod forbade only
one thing—namely, that any one might hang images in the
Church according to his fancy, and often therefore inad-
missible ones. Aubespine thinks that our canon forbids only
images representing God (because it says adoratur), and not
other pictures, especially those of saints. But the canon also
says colitur, and the prohibition is conceived in very general
terms.*
Can. 37. De energumenis non baptizatis.
Eos qui ab immundis spiritibus vexantur, si in fine mortis
fuerint constituti, baptizari placet: si fideles fuerint, dandam
1Cf. Nat. Alex. Eccles. Hist. sec. iii. 1.6. iv. 148.
2 Cf. the art. Christusbilder, by Dr. Hefele, in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer
et Welte, Bd. ii. S. 519 f.
* Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 486.
4 Ci. Nat. Alex. Eccles. Hist. sec. iii, lc. iv. 141 sq., 145, nota,
152 IISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
esse communionem. fProhibendum etiam ne lucernas hi pub-
lice accendant ; si facere contra interdictum voluerint, abksti-
neatur a communione.
This canon, like the 29th, speaks of demoniacs. If they
are catechumens, they may be baptized when at the point of
death (in articulo mortis), but not before that. If they are
baptized, the communion may be administered to them when
at the point of death, but not before. However, as the 29th
canon had before forbidden any ministry in the Church to
demoniacs, ours particularly adds that they could not fulfil
the least service in the Church, not even light the lamps.
Perhaps it may have been the custom to have the lamps of the
Church lighted by those who were to be baptized, or by those
ἌΠΟ were to communicate, on the day when they were to
receive this sacrament; and the Synod forbids that demo-
-‘niacs should do so, even if, in spite of their illness, they
-were able to receive a sacrament. ‘The inscription of the
-canon does not correspond to its whole tenor.
CAN. 38. Ut in necessitate et fideles baptizent.
Loco peregre navigantes aut si ecclesia proximo non fuerit,
posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suum integrum habet nec sit
‘bigamus, baptizare in necessitate infirmitatis positum, cate-
chumenum, ita ut si supervixerit ad episcopum eum perducat,
ut per manus impositionem perfici possit.
During a sea voyage, or in general, if no church is near, a
layman who has not soiled his baptismal robe (by apostasy),
and is not a bigamist, may baptize a catechumen who is at
the point of death ; the bishop ought afterwards to lay hands
on the newly baptized, to confirm him.’
Can. 39. De gentilibus si in diserimine baptizarr expetunt.
Gentiles si in infirmitate desideraverint sibi manum im-
poni, si fuerit eorum ex aliqua parte honesta vita, placuit eis
manum imponi et fieri Christianos.
This canon has been interpreted in two different ways.
Binius, Katerkamp, and others, hold that the imposition of
1 Cf. what is said above on the baptism of heretics, p. 112.
? In Mansi, ii. p. 40. 3 Kirchengeschichte, ii. S. 21.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 153
hands spoken of in this canon does not mean confirmation,
but a ceremony by means of which any one was admitted
into the lowest class of catechumens. These interpreters
appeal principally to the pretended seventh canon of the
second (ecumenical Council. We there read: “We admit
them only as pagans: the first day we make them Christians
(in the widest sense); the second, catechumens; the third,
we exorcise them,’ etc. etc. According to that, our canon
would say: “When a heathen, having a good name, desires
during an illness that hands should be laid upon him, it
ought to be done, that he may become a Christian.” That is
to say, he ought by the imposition of hands to be admitted
among those who wish to be Christians, consequently among
the Christians in the widest sense. The forty-fifth canon
also takes the word catechwmenus as synonymous with Chris-
tian. Besides, we find Constantine the Great received the
imposition of hands at the baths of Helenopolis before his bap-
tism : a ceremony of this kind then preceded the reception of
the first sacrament.” Relying upon these considerations, the
commentators we mentioned say that the canon of Elvira
does not speak of baptism, because this could not be admi-
nistered until after much longer trial. The provost of the
Cathedral at Koln, Dr. Miinchen, gives another explanation
in his dissertation upon the first Synod of Arles.’ According
to him,—
a. As the thirty-seventh canon allows the baptism of
demoniacs, it is not probable that they would be more severe
with respect to ordinary sick persons in the thirty-ninth
canon. On the contrary, the Church has always been tender
towards the sick: she has always hastened to confer baptism
upon them, because it is necessary to salvation; and for that
reason she introduced clinical baptism.
b. In the thirty-eighth canon the Church allows a layman
to baptize one who should fall seriously ill during a sea
voyage, but not to confirm him. She certainly, then, would
1 We shall prove, when the time comes, that this canon dees not belong to the
eecond (cumenical Council, but is a little more recent.
* Cf. below, sec. 52.
* Bonner Zeitschrift fiir Philos. u. Kathol. Theologie, Heft 26, 5. 80 £
154 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
allow this sick person to be confirmed if a bishop were pre-
sent in the ship.
ce. As for one who should fall ill upon land, he could easily
call a bishop to him; and therefore the case foreseen by the
thirty-eighth canon does not apply to him: it would be easy
to confer baptism and confirmation on him.
εἰ. The thirty-ninth canon, then, means: “ Whoso shall fall
ill upon lend, and who can summon a bishop to him, may
receive baptism and confirmation at the same time.” .
e. Understood in this way, the canon is more in unison
with the two preceding, and with the practice of the ancient
Church towards the sick.
Can. 40. Ne τὰ quod idolothytum est fideles accipiant.
Prohibere placuit, ut quum rationes suas accipiunt posses-
sores, quidquid ad idolum datum fuerit, accepto non ferant -
si post interdictum fecerint, per quinquennii-spatia temporum
a communione esse arcendos.
That is to say: When the proprietors of lands and houses
receive their rents (rationes),—for example, fruits from their
farmers, who perhaps are still pagans,—they ought not to admit
anything which had been sacrificed to the gods, under pain of
five years’ excommunication.
Can. 41. Ut prohibeant domini tdola colcre servis suis.
Admoneri placuit fideles, ut in quantum possunt prohibeant
ne idola in domibus suis habeant; si vero vim metuunt ser-
vorum, vel se ipsos puros conservent; si non fecerint, alieni
ab ecclesia habeantur.
The preceding canon had shown that many Christians had
farmers who were pagans; the present canon supposes the
case of a Christian having heathen slaves, and it enacts:
a. That he ought not, even in this case, to tolerate idols
in his house.
b. That if he cannot conform to this rule, and: must fear
the slaves on account of their number, he may leave them
their idols ; but he must so much the more keep at a dis-
tance from them, and watch against every approach to
idolatry.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. ὁ 155
Can. 42. De his qui ad fidem veniunt quando baptizentur.
Eos qui ad primam fidem credulitatis accedunt, si bone
fuerint conversationis, intra biennium temporum placuit ad
baptismi gratiam admitti debere, nisi infirmitate compellente
eoegerit ratio velocius subvenire periclitanti vel gratiam pos-
tulanti.
He who has a good name, and wishes to become a Chris-
tian, must be a catechumen for two years: then he may be
baptized. If he should fall ill, and desire the grace of bap-
tism, it may be granted to him before the expiration of two
years.
Can. 43. De celebratione Pentecostes.
Pravam institutionem emendari placuit juxta auctoritatem
Scripturarum, ut cuncti diem Pentecostes celebremus, ne si
quis non fecerit, novam hzeresim induxisse notetur.
Some parts of Spain had allowed the bad custom of cele-
brating the fortieth day after Easter, not the fiftieth; conse-
quently the Ascension of Christ, and not Pentecost. Several
ancient manuscripts, indeed, contain this addition: non qua-
dragesimam.’ The same addition is found in an ancient abridg-
ment of the canons of Elvira, with which Mansi makes us
acquainted :? post Pascha quinquagesima teneatur, non quadra-
gesima. We learn also from Cassian, that in the primitive
Church some Christians wished to close the paschal season
with the feast of the Ascension, that is, at the fortieth day.
They regarded all Easter-time only as a remembrance of
Christ’s sojourn among His disciples during the forty days
which followed His resurrection; and therefore they wished
to close this period with the feast of the Ascension.? Herbst
supposes that a Montanist party in Spain wished to suppress
the feast of Pentecost altogether, because the Montanists be-
lieved that the Holy Spirit did not descend until He came in
Montanus,* who was regarded by his followers as the Com-
forter.
1 Mansi, 1.6. p. 13; Bruns, 1.6. p. 7, not. 16 ; Mendoza in Mansi, lc. p. 295.
* Lc, m2) 9a.
3 Cassian, Collat. xxi. c. 20; Mendoza in Mansi, ζ 6. p. 297.
* Tiibinger Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 39 f.
155 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Can. 44. De meretricibus paganis si convertantur.
Meretrix que aliquando fuerit et postea habuerit maritum,
si postmodum ad credulitatem venerit; incunctanter placuit
esse recipiendam.
If a pagan courtezan has given up this abominable way of
life, and is married, being still a pagan, there is no particular
obstacle to her admission into the Church. She ought to be
treated as other pagan women.
Can. 45. De catechuments qui ecclesiam non frequentant.
Qui aliquando fuerit catechumenus et per infinita tempora
munguam ad ecclesiam accesserit, si eum de clero quisque
cognoverit esse Christianum, aut testes aliqui extiterint fideles,
placuit ei baptismum non negari, eo quod veterem hominem
dereliquisse videatur.
The case is here imagined of a catechumen who has not
een to church for a long time, probably because he did not
wish to be known as a Christian during a time of persecution ;
but afterwards his conscience awakes, and he asks to be bap-
tized. The canon ordains that if he is known to the clergy
of the Church to which he belongs, and they know him to be
a Christian, zc. a believer in Christ, or if some of the faithful
can attest this, he shall be admitted to baptism, because he
appears to have put off the lukewarmness of the old man.
Aubespine’ gives another interpretation which appears
forced, and shows that he most probably had not the text be-
fore him. According to him, the meaning of the canon would
be: “When a catechumen has fallen away for a long time,
and still after all desires baptism and to become a Chris-
tian, if he should suddenly lose speech, for example, from ulness
(the canon says not a word of all that), he may be baptized,
provided a clergyman or several of the laity attest that he has
desired baptism, and has become a real Christian.” The
Abbé Migne has placed this explanation in his Dictionary of
the Councils.
Can. 46. De fidelibus si apostaverint quamdiu peniteant.
Si quis fidelis apostata per infinita tempora ad ecclesiam
1 In Mansi, ii. 50, 3), 6. p. 834.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 157
non accesserit, si tamen aliquando fuerit reversus nec fuerit
idololator, post decem annos placuit communionem accipere.
The sin of a Christian who should absent himself from
church for a long time was naturally much greater than that
of acatechumen. For this reason, the baptized Christian who
has in fact apostatized is only received to the communion
after a ten years’ penance, and even then if he has not sacri-
ficed to the gods. It appears to us that this canon alludes to.
the time of Diocletian’s persecution; for during that terrible
time more than one cowardly Christian did not go to church,
gave no sign of Christian life, and thus apostatized in fact,
without positively offering sacrifice to the idols.
Can. 47. De co qui uxorem habens sepius mechatur.
Si quis fidelis habens uxorem non semel sed sepe fuerit
mcechatus in fine mortis est conveniendus: quod si se pro-
miserit cessaturum, detur ei communio: si resuscitatus rursus
fuerit mcechatus, placuit ulterius non ludere eum de com-
munione pacis.
If a Christian who is married, and has been often guilty
of adultery, is near death, they must go to see him (est con-
veniendus), and ask him whether, if he should recover, he
promises to amend his ways. If he promises, the holy com-
munion should be administered to him; if he should recover,
and should again be guilty of adultery, the holy communion
must not be allowed to be thus despised, it must hence-
forth be refused to him, even in articulo mortis. The sixty-
ninth and seventy-eighth canons complete the meaning of
this one.
Can. 48. De baptizatis ut nihil accipiat clerus.
Emendari placuit ut hi qui baptizantur, ut fieri solebat,
numos in concha non mittant, ne sacerdos quod gratis accepit
pretio distrahere videatur. Neque pedes eorum lavandi sunt a.
sacerdotibus vel clericis.
This canon forbids at the same time two things relative to
baptism :
1. It was the custom in Spain for the neophytes, at the
time of their baptism, to put an offering into the shell which
158 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
had been used at the baptism. This offering, afterwards called
the stole-rights,’ was to be suppressed.
2. The second part of the canon shows that there was the
same custom in certain parts of Spain as at Milan? and in
Gaul,’ but which, from the testimony of St. Ambrose, did not
exist at Rome, viz. that the bishop and clergy should wash
the feet of the newly baptized when they left the baptismal
font. Our Synod forbids this, and this canon has passed into
the Corp. jur. can#
Can. 49. De frugibus fidelium ne a Sudeis benedicantur.
Admoneri placuit possessores, ut non patiantur fructus suos,
quos a Deo percipiunt cum gratiarum actione, a Judzis bene-
dici, ne nostram irritam et infirmam faciant benedictionem :
si quis post interdictum facere usurpaverit, penitus ab ecclesia
abjiciatur.
The Jews were so numerous and so powerful in Spain
during the first centuries of the Christian era, that they might
at one time have hoped to be able to Judaize the whole
country. According to the monuments—which, however, are
of doubtful authority—they established themselves in Spain
in the time of King Solomon.’ It is more likely that they
crossed from Africa to the Spanish peninsula only about a
hundred years before Christ. There they soon increased in
number and importance, and could energetically carry on their
work of proselytizing.© This is the reason that the Synod of
Elvira had to forbid to the priests and the laity all intimate
intercourse with Jews (can. 50), and especially marriage (can.
16); for there is no doubt that at this period many Chris-
tians of high rank in Spain became Jews, as Jost shows in
his work.’
1 Something like surplice-fees.—Ep.
2 Cf. Ambros. lib. iii. de Sacramentis, 6. i. p. 362, vol. ii. ed. Bened.
8 Mabillon in Missalibus Gothico et Gallicano vetert. Cf. Ceillier, 1.6. iii. 670,
and Herbst in Tiibinger Quartalsch. 1821, S. 40.
*C. 104, causa i. q. 1.
° Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabiier bis auf unsere
Zage, Berlin 1825, ΤῊ]. v. 8. 13.
~ 6 Jost, Uc. S. 17.
T1c. S. 32-34. See Hefele on Cardinal Ximenes, 2d ed. S. 256 ff
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 159
Can. 50. De Christians qui cum Judeis vescuntur.
Si vero quis clericus vel fidelis cum Judeis cibum sump-
serit, placuit eum a communione abstineri, ut debeat emen-
dari.
CaN. 51. De hereticis ut ad clerum non promoveantur.
Ex omni heresi fidelis si venerit, minime est ad clerum
promovendus: vel si qui sunt in preteritum ordinati, sine
dubio deponantur.
These canons are easy to understand.
CAN. 52. De his qui in ecclesia libellos famosos ponunt.
Hi qui inventi fuerint libellos famosos in ecclesia ponere
anathematizentur.
This canon forbids the affixing of satires (libellos famosos’)
in churches, or the reading of them. It has been inserted in
the Corp. jur. can.
Can. 53. De episcopis qui excommunicato alicno communt-
cant.
Placuit cunctis ut ab eo episcopo quis recipiat communio-
nem a quo abstentus in crimine aliquo quis fuerit; quod si
alius episcopus presumpserit eum adinitti, illo adhue minime
faciente vel consentiente a quo fuerit communione privatus,
sciat se hujusmodi causas inter fratres esse cum status sui
periculo preestaturum.
One excommunicated by a bishop can only be restored by
the bishop who condemned him. Another bishop receiving
him into communion, unless the first bishop acts at the same
time, or approves of the reconciliation, must answer for it be-
fore his brethren, that is to say, before the provincial synod,
and must run the danger of being deprived of his office
(status).
Can. 54. De parentibus qui fidem sponsaliorum frangunt.
Si qui parentes fidem fregerint sponsaliorum, triennii tem-
pore abstineantur ; si tamen idem sponsus vel sponsa in gravi
crimine fuerint deprehensi, erunt excusati parentes; si in
1 Cf. Suetonius, Vita Octavii Aug. ¢. 55. | 2 C. 3, causa v. q. 1.
160 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
iisdem fuerit vitium et polluerint se, superior sententia ser-
vetur.
If the parents of those who are betrothed fail to keep the
promises made at the betrothal, these parents shall be ex-
cluded from the communion for three years, unless either of
the betrothed persons be convicted of a very serious fault.
In this case, the parents may break the engagement. If the
betrothed have sinned together, the first arrangement con-
tinues ; that is, the parents cannot then separate them. This
canon is found in the Corp. juris can.
CAN. 55. De sacerdotibus gentiliwm qui jam non sacrificant.
Sacerdotes qui tantum coronas portant, nec sacrificant nec
de suis sumptibus aliquid ad idola prestant, placuit post bien-
nium accipere communionem.
It may be asked whether the word sacerdotes is to be under-
stood as referring to pagan priests who wished to be admitted
as Christians, or to Christians who, as we have seen above
(can. 2), still bore the office of famines. Aubespine is of the
latter opinion, and according to him the canon would have
this meaning: “The Christian who bears the office of flamen,
and wears the distinctive sign—that is, the crown—without
having sacrificed himself, or having contributed money te
pagan sacrifices, must be excluded from eucharistic com-
munion for two years.” Aubespine gives the two following
reasons in support of his explanation: (@.) When a pagan
priest wished to become a Christian, he was not kept longer or
more strictly than others as a catechumen, even when he had
himself offered sacrifice. (0.) If it had referred to a pagan
priest wishing to become a Christian, the Synod would have
said, placwit post bienniwm acetpere lavacrum (baptism), and
not accipere communionem. This latter expression is used only
for those who have been excluded for some time from the
Church, and are admitted afresh into her bosom.
For our part, we think that this fifty-fifth canon is nothing
but a complement of the second and third canons, and that it
forms with them the following gradation :—
Can. ἃ. Christians who, as flanvines, have sacrificed to idols
1C, 1, causa xxxi. q. 3
- SYNOD OF ELVIRA.’ " - 161
and given public pagan games, cannot receive the communion,
even when at the point of death.
Can, 3. If they have not offered sacrifices, but have had
the games celebrated, they may communicate at the close of
their life, after a previous penance.
Can. 55. If they have not offered sacrifice, nor contributed
by their fortune to pagan sacrifices (and to such public
games), they may receive the communion after two years of
penance.
This gradation is continued in the two following canons,
the fifty-sixth and fifty-seventh : they refer to Christians who
have not been jlamnes, but who have borne other offices in a
heathen state, and so have been brought into relation with
paganism. :
The fifty-fifth canon evidently alludes to a former and not
far distant time of persecution, during which Christians feared
to refuse the office of flamines which fell to their lot, and by
a half compliance wore the distinctive mark of their office, the
crown, in order to pass uninjured through the time of perse-
cution.
CAN. 56. De magistratibus et dwumviris.
Magistratus vero uno anno quo agit duumviratum, prohi-
bendum placet ut se ab ecclesia cohibeat.
What the consuls were at Rome, the dwumviri were, on
a small scale, in the Roman municipalities: their office also
lasted only a year. These dwumviri were obliged, by virtue
of their office, to watch over pagan priests personally, and the
temples of the town; they had to preside at public solemni-
ties, in processions, etc., which, like all the other national
feasts of the Romans, had always more or less a semi-religious
and pagan character. For this reason the Synod forbade: the
duumvirt to enter the Church as long as they were in office.
In limiting itself to this prohibition, it gave proof. of great
moderation and of wise consideration, which we ought to ap-
preciate. An absolute prohibition to hold this office would
have given up the charge of the most important towns to
pagans. But the Council is much more severe in the fol-
jowing canon. ;
Bs
162 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Oan. 57. De his qui vestimenta ad ornandam pempam, drde-
runt, :
Matronze vel earum mariti vestimenta sua ad ornandam
seeculariter porapam non dent; et si fecerint, triennio absti-
neantur. |
This canon is directed against Christians who should lend
their garments for worldly shows, 2.e. for public, half-heathen-
ish religious processions. They are punished with three years
of excommunication. But why are they treated so much
more severely than the duumviri? Because these men and
women were not obliged to lend their attire, whilst the
duumvirt were fulfilling their public duty as citizens, — Per-
haps also some gave their garments, that they might not be
suspected during the persecutions.
Can. 58. De his qui communicatorias litteras portant, ut de
fide interrogentur.
‘Placuit ubique et maxime in eo loco, in quo prima cathedra
constituta est episcopatus, ut interrogentur hi qui communica-
torias litteras tradunt an omnia recte habeant suo testimonio
comprobata,
In Africa no metropolitan rights were attached to particu-
lar towns: they always belonged to the oldest bishop of the
province, whose bishopric was then called prima. sedcs.'
Carthage only was the metropolitan see. It appears to have
been the same in Spain before Constantine the Great divided
that country into seven political provinces, which entailed
the division into ecclesiastical provinces. This may explain
why the Bishop of Acci presided at the Synod of Elvira: he
was probably the oldest of all the bishops present. What
is elsewhere called prima scdes in our canon is prima cathe-
dra ; and the bishops of the prima cathedra were to question
Christian travellers about their respective dioceses, the latter
were to present their recommendatory letters, and were to
be asked if they could affirm that all was in a satisfactory
state.
1Cf. De Marca, de Primatibus, p. 10, in the Appendix to the book de Concor-
dia sacerdotii et imperii, and Van Espen. Commentar. in canones et decreta,
Ῥ- 315.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 163
Can. 59. De fidelibus ne ad Capitolium causa sacrificandi
ascendant. j
Prohibendum ne quis Christianus ut gentilis ad idolum
Capitolii causa sacrificandi ascendat et videat ; quod si fecerit,
pari crimine teneatur: si fuerit fidelis, post decem annos acta
peenitentia recipiatur.
Like Rome, many municipalities had a capitol, in the court
of which sacrifices were offered to the gods, and many Chris-
tians were present at the ceremonies of the pagan worship.
Was it from curiosity ? was it in order to shelter themselves
from inquiry, not to be known during the persecution, and to
pass for heathen? This is what we are unable to decide. At
any rate, the Synod declared that—
a. Any Christian, either baptized or a catechumen, who
should be present at the sacrifices, should be considered as’
having offered sacrifice himself.
b. Consequently any Christian who has been present at
these sacrifices should be excommunicated and a penitent for
ten years. The Synod says nothing about the punishment of
guilty catechumens: in every case they were in general
punished less severely than the faithful, and perhaps the fourth
canon was applied to them by analogy.
Can. 60. De his qui destruentes idola occiduntur.
Si quis idola fregerit et ibidem fuerit occisus, quatenus in
Evangelio scriptum non est neque invenietur sub apostolis
unquam factum, placuit in numero eum non recipi martyrum.
It happened sometimes that too zealous Christians would
destroy the idols, and have to pay for their boldness with their
life. The Synod decrees that they must not be considered as
martyrs, for the gospel does not require deeds of this kind, and
the apostles did not act in this way; but they considered it
praiseworthy if a Christian, whom they might wish to oblige
to offer sacrifice to an idol, should overthrow the statue, and
break it, as Prudentius Clemens relates with commendation of
Eulalia, who suffered martyrdom in Spain in 304, and there-
fore a short time previous to this Synod.’
1 Prudentius Clemens, Peristeph. iii. in hon. Lulalie, p. 211, ed. Obba. Cf
Reinart, Acta Martyr. ed. Galura, iii. 69 sqq.
ὃ
10:1 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Ὁ CAN. 61. De his.qui duabus sororibus copulantur.
Si quis post obitum uxoris sue sororem ejus duxerit et
ipsa’ fuerit fidelis, quinquennium'a communione placuit ab-
stineri, nisi forte velocius dari pacem necessitas coegerit in-
firmitatis. : |
When S. Basil the Great ascended the archiepiscopal throne
of Czesarea, he forbade that a husband, after the death of his
wife, should marry her sister; and when some one, of the
name of Diodorus, reproached him upon this subject, Basil
defended himself in. a letter, which has been preserved, and
proved that such marriages had always been prohibited at
Cesarea." The Spanish Fathers of Elvira shared 5. Basil’s
opinions, as also did the Svnod of Neoczesarea of 314, can. 2,
as we shall see hereafter. ‘It is well known that, according to
canon law, these marriages are both forbidden and declared to
be invalid.”
CAN. 62. De aurigis et pantomimis st convertantur.
Si auriga aut pantomimus credere voluerint, placuit ut prius
artibus suis renuntient, et tunc demum suscipiantur, ita ut
ulterius ad ea non revertantur, qui si facere contra interdictum
tentaverint, projiciantur ab ecclesia.
The “ Apostolical Constitutions” ἢ contain the same decree.
On the subject of the repugnance of the ancient Church for all
these pantomimic scenes, cf. Hefele, “ Rigorismus in dem Leben
und den Ansichten der alten Christen” (Severity in the Lives
and Opinions of the early Christians), an essay published in
the Tiibinger Theol. Quartalschrift, 1841 (8S. 396 ff).
The following series of canons treats of carnal sins :—
CAN. 63. De uxoribus que filios cx adulterio necant.
Si qua per adulterium absente marito suo conceperit, idque
post facinus occiderit, placuit nec in finem dandam esse com-
munionem, eo quod geminaverit scelus.
1S. Basilii Zpist. 160, Opp. iii. 249, ed. Bened.
2C. 1 and 8, x., de Consanguinitate et afinitate (iv. 14). Cf. Coneil. Trid
sessio 24, cap. 4, de ref. matrim.
3 Lib. viii. c. 32.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. i 165
Can. 64. De faminis que usque ad mortem cum alrenis viris
adulterant.
Si qua usque in finem mortis suze cum alieno viro fuerit
meechata, placuit, nec in finem dandam ei esse communionem.
Si vero eum reliquerit, post decem annos accipiat communionem
acta legitima pcenitentia. :
CAN. 65. De adulteris uxoribus clericorwm.:
Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit mcechata et scierit eam maritus
suus moechari et non eam statim projecerit, nec in finem
accipiat communionem, ne ab his qui exemplum bone con-
versationis esse debent, ab eis videantur scelerum magisteria
procedere.
The Shepherd of Hermas? had before, like this canon, strin-
gently commanded not only the clergy, but all Christians, not
to continue to live conjugally with an adulterous spouse, who
would not amend her ways, but would persevere in sin” Dr.
Herbst says, that what made the sixty-fifth canon necessary
was probably the very frequent case of married men having
taken orders, and not being able to have conjugal intercourse
with their wives, who were therefore on that very account
easily tempted to forget themselves.”
The series of canons against carnal sins is continued in the
tollowing, which forbids marriage with a daughter-in-law :—
CAN. 66. De his qui privignas suas ducunt.
Si quis privignam suam duxerit uxorem, eo quod sit incestus
placuit nec in finem dandam esse communionem.
Can. 67. De conjugio catechumene femine.
Prohibendum ne qua fidelis vel catechumena aut comatos
aut viros cinerarios habeant: queecumque ἊΝ fecerint, a com-
munione arceantur. :
If we.attach any importance to‘ {Π6 title of this canon, it
must be thought to indicate that Christian women, whether
catechumens or baptized, were forbidden to marry those desig’
1 Lih. ii. mandat. iv.
* See Hefele’s ed. Opp. Ῥαῤ μὰ apostolcor um, Pp. — a. 3.
2 Quartaischrift, 1821, S. 43.
166 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
nated by the name of comatos and cinerarios. In other manu-
scripts we read comicos and scenicos, If the latter reading is
the true one, the meaning of the canon is very clear—<A
Christian woman must not marry an actor;” and this prohibi-
tion would explain the aversion of the ancient Church to the
theatre, which has been before mentioned. But it is probable
that, not having been able to find out the meaning of the
words comate and cinerarti, later copyists have altered them,
and changed them into comici and scenic. Imagining that here
was a prohibition of marriage, they could not understand why
a Christian woman was not to marry a man having long hair,
or even a hairdresser. We believe that Aubespine is right
when he reminds us that many pagan women had foreign
slaves, and especially hairdressers, in their service, who mi-
nistered not only to the needs of luxury, but to the secret
satisfaction of their passions. Perhaps these effeminate slaves
— these spadones— encouraging the licentiousness of their
mistresses, wore long hair, or, coming from foreign countries—
for instance, from Gallia comata—where long hair was always
worn, they introduccd this name of comati. Tertullian speaks
of the cinerari ( peregrine proceritatis), and describes them as
foreigners, with slight figures, and forming part of the suite of
a woman of the world. He mentions them in connection with
the spadones, who were ad licentiam secti, or, as S. Jerome says,
ain securam libidinem easecti.”
Juvenal® has not forgotten to signalize these relations of
Roman women with eunuchs: “Sunt, quas eunuchi imbelles
et mollia semper Oscula delectent.”
Martial * denounces them, if possible, still more energetically.
Perhaps these eunuchs wore long hair like women in order that
they might be called comati, Let us finally remark, that in
the Glossary cinerarius.is translated by δοῦλος ἑταίρας
If this second explanation of the sixty-seventh canon is
accepted, it can be easily: imagined why it. should be placed 3 in
a series of canons treating of carnal sins.
1 Tertull. Ad Uzor. lib. 2, c. 8.
2 Hieron. Adv. vovinian. lib. i. § 47, p. 277, vol. ii. ed. Migne,
3 Sat. vi. ¥. 366 sq. 4 Kpigram. lib. vi. n. 67.
5 Cf. Index Latinitatis Tertull. in the ed. of Tertull. by Migne, ii. 1271,
SYNOD OF ELVIRA, ‘167
Can. 68: De catechumena adulicra que filiwm necat.
᾿ Catechumena, si per adulterium conceperit et proefocaverit,
placuit eam in fine baptizari.
‘If a catechumen should conceive by an adulterer, and Should
procure the death of the child, she can be ‘baptized only at
the end of her 116.
Can..69. De viris conjugatis postea in adulterium lapsis.
_ $i quis forte habens uxorem semel fuerit lapsus, placuit
eum quinquennium agere debere poenitentiam et sic reconciliari,
nisi necessitas infirmitatis coegerit ante tempus dari commu-
nionem : hoc et circa foeminas observandum.
ἜΔΒΠΟΣΣ committed once was punishable with five years
of penance.’
Cay. 70. De Jeminis que consciis maritis adulterant.
Si cum conscientia mariti uxor fuerit moechata, placuit nee
in finem dandam ei communionem; si vero eam reliquerit,
post decem annos accipiat communionem, si eam cum sciret
adulteram aliquo tempore in domo sua retinuit.
If a woman should violate conjugal fidelity with her hus-
band’s consent, the latter must not be admitted to communion,
even at the end of his life. If he separated from his wife,
after having lived with her at all since the sin was committed,
he was to be excluded for ten years.
Can. 71. De stupratoribus puerorwm.
Stupratoribus puerorum nec in finem dandam esse com-
munionem.
Sodomites could not. be admitted to communion, even on.
their deathbeds.
Can, :72. ,De vides mechis st eumden postea maritum
duaerint.
Si qua vidua fuerit με των et eumdem postea habuerit
maritum, post quinquennil tempus acta legitima pcenitentia,
placuit eam communioni reconciliari; si alium duxerit relicto
illo, nec in finem dandam esse communionem; vei si fuerit
τος can, 47, 78.
168 HISTORY OF TIE COUNCILS.
ille fidelis quem accepit, communionem non accipiet, nisi post
decem annos acta legitima peenitentia, vel si infirmitas coegerit
velocius dari communionem. | |
When a widow had sinned, and had married her accomplice,
she was condemned to five years of penance ; if she should
marry «nother man, she could never be admitted to com-
mnunion, even on her deathbed ; and if her husband were bap-
tized, he was subject to’a penance for’ ten years, for having
married ἃ woman who, properly speaking, was no longer free.
This canon was inserted in the Corp. jur: can. |
The following canons treat of informers and false witnesses,
Can. 73. De delatoribus.
Delator si quis extiterit fidelis, et per delationem ejus aliquis
fuerit proscriptus vel interfectus, placuit eum nec in finem
accipere communionem ; si levior causa fuerit, intra quin-
quennium accipere poterit communionem; si catechumenus
fuerit, post quinquennii tempora admittetur ad baptismum.
This canon has been inserted in the Corp. jur. can2
Can. 74. De falsis testibus,
Falsus testis prout est. crimen abstinebitur ; si tamen non
fuerit mortale quod objecit, et probaverit quod non (other
manuscripts have dw) tacuerit, biennii tempore abstinebitur :
sl autem non probaverit convento clero, placuit per quinquen-
nium abstineri.
A. false witness must be excluded from the communion for
«time proportionate to the crime of which he has given false
witness. Should the crime be one not punishable with death,
and if the guilty one can demonstrate that he kept silence
for a long time (diw), that is, that he did not willingly bear
witness, he shall be condemned to two years of penance ; if
he cannot ‘prove this, to five years. The canon is thus ex-
plained by Mendoza, Rémi Ceillier in Migne’s Dictionary,
etc., all preferring the reading div. Burchard® had previously
read and quoted the canon with this variation, in his Col-’
lectio canonum.* .. But Aubespine divides it into three quite
1C. 7, causa xxxi. q. 1. 2 C. 6, causa v. q. 6. 3 He died in 1025,
4 Lib. xvi. c. 18. Cf. Mendoz in Mansi, ii. 381.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. ©. 169
distinct parts. The first, he says, treats of false witnesses’;
the second, of those who are too slow in denouncing a crime.
They must be punished, but only by two years of penance, if
they can prove that they have not (non) kept silence to the
end. The third condemns those to five years of penance, who,
without having borne false witness, still cannot prove what
they affirm."
We confess that none of these explanations is quite satis-
factory : the first would be the most easily admissible ; but it is
hardly possible to reconcile it with the reading non tacuerit,
which, however, is that of the best manuscripts.
Can. 75. De his qui sacerdotes vel ministros aceusant nee
probant.
Si quis autem episcopum vel presbyterum vil aiaconum
falsis criminibus appetierit et probare non potuerit, nec in
{inem dandam ci esse communionem.
Can. 76. De diaconibus st ante honorem peccasse probantur.
Si quis diaconum :se permiserit ordinari et postea fuerit
-_detectus in crimine mortis quod aliquando commiserit, si sponte
fuerit confessus, placuit eum acta legitima pcenitentia post.
triennium accipere communionem; quod si alius eum de-
texerit, post quinquennium acta pcenitentia accipere commu-
nionem laicam debere.
If any one should succeed in being ordained deacon, and it
should be subsequently discovered that he had before that
committed a mortal sin :
a. In case he was the first to make known his fault, he
must be received into communion (as a layman) at the end
of three years οὗ penance.
ὁ. In case his sin was discovered by pista at the end of
five years. In both cases he was for ever suspended from -his
office of deacon.”
Can. 77. De baptizatis qui nondum confirmati moriuntur.
Si quis diaconus regens plebem sine episcopo vel presbytero
_ aliquos baptizaverit, episcopus cos. per benedictionem perficere
1 In Mansi, ii. 58... 2 Cf. canons 9, 10, and ο. 2 of the Nicene Council.
‘170 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
debebit : quod. si ante de szeculo recesserint, sub bee 488 quis
credidit poterit esse justus.
When Christianity spread from the large towns, where it
had been at first established, into the country, the rural
churches at first formed only one parish with the cathedral
church of the town. Lither priests, or Chorepiscopi, or simple
deacons, were sent to these rural assemblies, to exercise, within
certain limits, the ministerial power. The solemnity of con-
secrating the Eucharist, and all that had reference to poy,
was reserved for the bishop of the town.
The 77th canon refers to such deacons, and it ordains :
a. That baptism administered by the deacon ought to be
completed, finished by the bishop’s benediction (that is to say,
by χειροτονία, or confirmation).
b. That if one who had been baptized by a deacon should
die before having received this benediction from the bishop,
he may notwithstanding be saved, by virtue of the faith which
he professed on receiving baptism.
Can. 78. De fidelibus conjugatis si cum Judea vel gentili
mechate (ὦ) fuerint.
Si quis fidelis habens uxorem cum Judea vel gentili fuerit
meechatus, ἃ communione arceatur: quod si alius eum de-
texerit, post quinquennium acta legitima pcenitentia poterit
dominic sociari communioni.
The 47th and 69th canons have already treated of adultery
between Christians: the present canon speaks of a particular
case of adultery committed with a Jewish or pagan woman,
and decrees a penance of five years if the guilty one has not
confessed himself. If he has made a spontaneous confession,
the canon only gives this vague and general command, Arcea-
tur, that is, that he shite: be euladpomriaicadsc: but it does
not say for how long a time: it might be supposed’ for three
years, according to the analogy with the 76th canon. How-
ever, it would be strange that adultery with a Jewish or pagan
woman should be punished only by three years of : penance,
while the 69th canon decrees, in a general way, five years’
punishment to every adulterer. It is still: thore difficult to
1 This is the opinion of Mendoza in Mansi, ii, 888.
SYNOD OF ELVIRA. — ‘171
explain why real adultery should be less severely punished in
the 78th canon than the evidently less criminal offence of a
widow with a man whom she afterwards marries.’
CAN. 79. De his qui tabulam ludunt.
Si quis fidelis aleam, id est tabulam, luserit numis, pla-
cuit eum abstineri; et si emendatus cessaverit, post annum
‘poterit communioni reconciliari.
The thimbles of the ancients had not any points or figures
upon their sides (tabula), like ours, but drawings, pictures of
idols; and whoever threw the picture of Venus, gained all,
as» Augustus says in Suetonius:? guwos tollebat wniversos, qui
Venerem jecerat. It is on this account that the ancient Chris-
tians considered the game of thimbles to be not only immoral
as a game of chanee, but as having an essentially pagan
charac tex,’
Can. 80. De libertis,
Prohibendum ut liberti, quorum patroni in seeculo fuerint,
ad clerum non promoveantur.
He who should give a slave his freedom remained his
patron; he had certain rights and a certain influence over
him. The freedman continued to be dependent upon his
former master; for this reason freedmen whose patrons were
heathens could not take orders. This canon was placed in
the Corp. jur. can.
Can, 81. De feminarum epistolis.
Ne fceminz suo potius absque maritorum nominibus laicis
scribere. audeant, que (qui) fideles sunt vel literas alicujus
pacificas ad suum solum nomen scriptas accipiant.
If we should read gui instead of guw,as Mendoza makes it,
on the authority of several manuscripts, our canon is easy to
understand. It then divides itself into two parts:
. ας ,Women must not write in their own name to lay Chris-
1 Cf. 72d canon. 2 Tn Augusto, c. 71. ᾿
3 Cf. the document de Aleatoribus, wrongly attributed to S. Cyprian, ed. of
the works of this Father by the Ben. of 5. Maur, Supplement, p. xviii. 54.
40. 24, dist. liv.
172 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
tians, lwicis qui fideles sunt ; they may do so only in the name
of their husbands.
b. They must not receive ἜΜΕΝ of friendship (pacifiens)
from any one, addressed only to themselves. Mendoza thinks
that the canon means only private letters, and that. it is for-
bidden in the interests of conjugal fidelity. .
Aubespine gives quite another sense to the word litteods - he
supposes that the Council wishes only to forbid the wives of
bishops giving literas communicatorias to Christian travellers
in their own name, and that it also forbids them to receive
such addressed to them instead of to their husbands.
If we read que, we must. attach the words que fideles sunt
to famine, and the meaning continues on the whole the same.
Besides these eighty-one authentic canons, some others are
attributed to the Council of Elvira: for instance, in the Corp.
jur. can. (c. 17, causa xxii. q. 4; also ὁ. 21, dist. 11, de consc-
crat., and ο. 15, causa xxii. q. 5), there is evidently a mistake
about some of these canons, which, as Mendoza and Cardinal
d’ Aguirre have remarked,’ belong to a Synodus Helibernensis or
Hibernensis.2 We will remark finally, that whilst Baronius
thinks little of the Synod of Elvira, which he wrongfully sus-
pects of Novatian opinions,* Mendoza and Natalis Alexandex
defend it eloquently.’
Sec. 14. Origin of the Schism of the Donatists, and the first
Synods held on this accownt rn 312 and 313.
The schism of the Donatists occasioned several synods at
the beginning of the fourth century. Mensurius was bishop
of Carthage during Diocletian’s persecution. He was a-worthy
and serious man, who on the one side encouraged the faithful
to courage and energy during the persecution, but on the other
side stronaly reproved any step which ΜΘ increase ses
1 Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 8391 ; Aubespine, ibid. p. δ.
Φ κα, p. 85.
-3 These additional canons are found in Mansi, ii. 19, 20. Cf. also the two
notes.
4 See above, p. 134.
5 Mendoza in Mansi, 1.6. ii. 76 sq., and in many places where he is explain-
ing particular canons, Natal. Alex. J/ist.. Hecl. sec. 3, vol. iv. dissevt. xxi. art.
2, p. 159 sqq. "
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 173
irritation of the heathen. He especially blamed certain Chris-
tians of Carthage, who had denounced themselves to the heathen
authorities as possessors of sacred. books (even when this was
not really the case), in order to obtain martyrdom by their
refusal to give up the Holy Scriptures. Nor would he grant
the honours of martyrdom to those who, after a licentious life,
should court. martyrdom without being morally improved."
We see, by a letter of Mensurius, how he himself behaved
during the persecution. He relates, that when they required
the sacred books from him, he hid them, leaving in the
church only heretical books, which were taken away by the
persecutors. The proconsul had soon discovered this cunning ;
but, however, did not wish to pursue Mensurius further.’
Many enemies of the bishop, especially Donatus Bishop of
Casze-Nigre in Numidia, falsely interpreted what had passed :
they pretended that Mensurius had, in fact, delivered up the
Holy Scriptures ;* that, at any rate, he had told a sinful false-
hood ; and they began to excite disturbance in the Church οἵ
Carthage.* . However, these troubles did not take the form
of a miserable schism till after the death of Mensurius. A
deacon named Felix, being persecuted by the heathen, took
refuge in the house of Bishop Mensurius. As the latter
refused to give him up, he was taken to Rome, to answer in
person for his resistance before Maxentius, who since Diocle-
tian’s abdication had possessed himself of the imperial power
in Italy and in Africa. Mensurius succeeded in obtaining an
acquittal; but he died on the way back to Carthage, and before
arriving there, in 311.° Two celebrated priests of Carthage,
Botrus and Celestius, aspired to the vacant throne, and thought
it their interest to invite to the election and ordination of the
future bishop only the neighbouring prelates, and not those of
Numidia. It is doubtful whether this was quite according to
order. Inasmuch as Numidia formed a separate ecclesiastical
1 Angust. Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, diei iii. cap. 13, n. 25.. Opp.
vol. ix. p. 638, ed.. Migne. Dupin in his ed. of Optatus of Milevis, de Schismate
Donatist., Antwerp 1702, p. 174.
3 Axgust. le.
* Cf. the article de Lapsis, by Hefele, in the Freiburger Kirchenicxicon of
Weizer and Welte, Bd. i. S. 39. s
4 Ancust. lc. c. 12 and 13. § Optat. de Schism. Don. i. 17.
174 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
province, distinct from the province of proconsular Africa, of
which Carthage was the metropolis, the bishops of Numidia had
no right to take part in the election of a Bishop of Carthage.
But as the metropolitan (or, according to African language,
the primate) of Carthage was in some sort the patriarch of
the whole Latin Church of Africa; and as, on this account,
Numidia was under his jurisdiction,’ the bishops of Numidia
might take part in the appointment of a Bishop of Carthage.
On the other side, the Donatists were completely in the wrong,
when subsequently they pretended that the primate of Car-
thage ought to be consecrated by that metropolitan whose rank
was the nearest to his own (primas, or prime sedis episcopus
or senex) ; consequently the new Bishop of Carthage ought to
have been consecrated by Secundus Bishop of Tigisis, then
metropolitan (Primas) of Numidia:? and it is with reason that
S. Augustine replied to them in the name of the whole
African episcopate, during a conference held at Carthage in
411, that even the Bishop of Rome was not consecrated by the
primate nearest to him in rank, but by the Bishop of Ostia.’
The two priests mentioned above found themselves deceived
at the time of the election, which took place at Carthage: for
the people, putting them on one side, elected Cecilian, who
had been archdeacon under Mensurius; and Felix Bishop of
Aptunga, suffragan of Carthage, consecrated him immediately.‘
The consecration was hardly ended, when some priests and
some of the laity of Carthage resolved to unite their efforts to
ruin the new bishop. On his departure for Rome, Mensurius
had confided the treasures of his church to the care of some
Christians: at the same time he had given the list of every-
thing entrusted to them into the hands of a pious woman,
charging her, “in case he should not return, to remit this list
to his successor.” The woman fulfilled her commission; and
the new bishop, Cecilian, claimed the property of the church
from those with whom it had been left. This demand irritated
1Cf. below, can. 1 and 4 of the Council of Hippo in 393, and ¢. 7 of the
Council ot Carthage of August 28, 397, with our observations ; besides, Wiltsch,
Kirchl. Geographie und Statistik, Bd. i. 8. 180.
2 Cf. the observations upon the fifty-eighth canon of the Council of Elvira, p
162.
ὃ August. lc. c. 16, ἢ, 29. 4 Optatus, l.c. p. 17 sq
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS, 175
them against him: they had hoped that no one would have
known of this deposit, and that they might divide it amongst
themselves,
Besides these laymen, the two priests mentioned above
arrayed themselves against Cecilian. The soul of the opposi-
tion was a very rich lady, who. had a great reputation for
piety, named Lucilla, and who thought she was most grievously
wronged by Cecilian. She had been in the habit, every time
she communicated, of kissing the relics of a martyr not ac-
counted such by the Church. Cecilian, who was at that time
a deacon, had forbidden the worship of these relics not recog-
nised by the Church, and the pharisaical pride of the woman
could not pardon the injury.’
Things were in this state when Secundus Bishop of Tigisis,
in his office of episcopus prime sedis of Numidia, sent a com-
mission to Carthage to appoint a mediator (interventor) nomi-
nally for the reconciliation of the parties.? But the commission
was very partial from the beginning: they entered into no
relation with Cecilian or his flock; but, on the contrary, took
up their abode with Lucilla,’ and consulted with her on the
plan to follow for the overthrow of Cecilian. The malcon-
tents, says Optatus, then asked the Numidian bishops to come
to Carthage to decide about the election and the consecration
of Cecilian, and in fact Secundus of Tigisis soon appeared with
his suffragans. They took up their abode with the avowed
opponents of Cecilian, and refused to take part in the assem-
bly or synod which he wished to call, according to custom, to
hear the Numidian bishops ; and, instead, they held a conci-
liabulum of their own, at which seventy met, and in a private
house in Carthage, before which they summoned Cecilian to
appear (312). Cecilian did not attend, but sent word “ that
if they had anything against. him, the accuser had only to
appear openly and prove it.” No accusation was made ;* and
besides, they could bring forward nothing against Cecilian,
except having formerly, as archdeacon, forbidden the visiting.
1 Optatus, lc. pp. 16-18.
* August. Hp. 44, ο. 4, ἢ. 8, ii. 177, ed. Migne.
* Augustin. Sermo 46, ο. 15, n. 89, v. 293, ed. Migne.
4 Optatus, lc. p. 18.
176 - WISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
of tlie martyrs in prison and the taking of food tu them.’
Evidently, says Dupin,” Cecilian had only followed the
counsel of S. Cyprian, in forbidding the faithful to go in
crowds to the prisons of the martyrs, for fear of inciting the
pagans to renewed acts of violence. Although Cecilian was
perfectly right in this respect, it is possible that in the appli-
cation of the rule, right in itself, he may have acted with
some harshness. This is at least what we must conclude if
only the tenth part of the accusations raised against him by
an anonymous Donatist have any foundation.’ He says, for
instance, that Cecilian would not even allow parents to visit
their captive sons and daughters, that he had taken away the
food from those who wished to take it to the martyrs, and
had given it to the dogs, and the like. His adversaries laid
still greater stress on the invalidity of Cecilian’s consecration,
because his consecrator, Felix of Aptunga, had been a Z’raditor
(i.e. had given up the sacred books) during the persecution of
Diocletian. No council had heretofore ordained that the
sacraments were valid even when administered by heinous
sinners ; therefore Cecilian answered, with a sort of condescen-
sion towards his enemies, “that if they thought that Felix
had not rightfully ordained him, they had only themselves to
proceed to his ordination.” * But the bishops of Numidia did
doubly wrong in thus setting themselves against Felix of
Aptunga. First, the accusation.of his having given up the
sacred books was absolutely false, as was proved by a judicial
inquiry made subsequently, in 314. The Roman officer who
had been charged to collect the sacred books at Aptunga
attested the innocence of Felix; whilst one Ingentius, who, in
his hatred against Felix, had produced a false document to
ruin him, confessed his guilt.” But apart from this circum-
stance, Secundus and his friends, who had themselves given
up the Holy Scriptures, as was proved in the Synod of Cirta,”
1 August. Brevic. collat. diei iii. c. 14, n. 26. Optat. Uc. p. 176, in Dupin’s
edition.
Ric. p. 2. 3 Optat. Lc. p. 156, Dupin’s ed.
4 Optat. Lc. p. 18. August. Brevic. collat. diei iii. c. 16, ἢ, 29.
5. Gesta purgationis Felicis, ep. Apt. in Dupin’s ed. of the works of Optat.
dc. p. 162 sqa.
ὁ See above, p. 129.
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS, 177
had hardly the right to judge Felix for the same offe ice.
Besides, they had at this same Synod of Cirta consecr ited
Silvanus bishop of that place, who was also convicted of
having been a Zraditor.. Without troubling themselves with
all these matters, or caring for the legality of their proceeding,
the Numidians proclaimed, in their unlawful Council, the
deposition οἵ - Cecilian, whose consecration they said was
invalid, and elected a friend and partisan of Lucilla’s, the
reader Majorinus, to be Bishop of Carthage. Lucilla had
bribed the Numidian bishops, and promised to each of them
400 pieces of gold.”
This done, the unlawful Numidian Council addressed a ejr.
eular letter to all the churches of Africa, in which they related
what had passed, and required that the churches should cease
from all ecclesiastical communion with Cecilian. It followed
from this that, Carthage being in some sort the patriarchal
throne of Africa, all the African provinces were implicated in
this controversy. In almost every town two parties were
formed ; in many cities there were even two bishops—a Ceci-
lian and a Majorinian. Thus began this unhappy schism.
As Majorinus had been put forward by others, and besides as
he died soon ater his election, the schismatics did not take
his name, but were called Donatists, from the name of Donatus
Bishop of Casze Nigree, who had much more influence than
Majorinus, and also afterwards on account of another Donatus,
surnamed the Great, who became the successor of Majorinus
as schismatical Bishop of Carthage. Out of Africa, Cecilian
‘was everywhere considered the rightful bishop, and it was to
him only that letters of communion (epistole communicatoriv)
were addressed.? Constantine the Great, who meanwhile had
conquered Maxentius in the famous battle. at the Milvian
Bridge, also recognised Cecilian, wrote to him, sent him a
large sum of money to distribute among his -priests, and
added, “that he had heard that some unruly spirits sought to
trouble the Church; but that he had already charged the
magistrates to restore order, and that Cecilian had onty to
apply to them for the punishment of the agitators.”* In
1 Optat. ed. Dupin, Lc. iii, 14, 15, 175. ? Optat. lc. p. 19, n. 39, and p. vi
8 Optat. lc. p. 20 and p. iv, 4 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. ὃ,
M
178 ὃ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
another letter, addressed to the proconsul of Africa, Anulinus,
he exempted the clergy of the Catholic Church of Carthage,
“ whose president was Cecilian,” from all public taxes."
Soon afterwards, the opponents of Cecilian, to whom many
of the laity joined themselves, remitted two letters to the pro-
consul of Africa, begging him to send them to the Emperor.
Anulinus accordingly did so.” The title of the first letter,
which 5. Augustine has preserved to us, viz. libellus Heclesiw
Catholice (that is to say, of the Donatist Church) eriminum
Ceciliani,? suffices to show its tenor; the second entreated the
Emperor, on account of the divisions among the African
bishops, to send judges from Gaul to decide between them
and Cecilian.* This latter letter, preserved by Optatus,’ is
sioned by Lucian, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius, ec
ceteris episcopis partis Donati. In his note upon this passage,
Dupin has proved by quotations from this letter, as it is
found in 8. Augustine, that the original was partis Majorina,
which Optatus changed into Donati, according to the expres-
sion commonly used in his time.
We see from the preceding that the Donatists deserved the
reproach which was cast upon them, of being the first to call for
the intervention of the civil power in a purely ecclesiastical
case; and the Emperor Constantine himself, who was then in
Gaul, openly expressed his displeasure on this subject, in a
letter which he addressed to Pope Melchiades (Miltiades).°
However, to restore peace to Africa, he charged three bishops
of Gaul—Maternus of Coln, Reticius of Autun, and Marinus of
Arles—to make arrangements with the Pope and fifteen other
Italian bishops to assemble in a synod which was held at
tome in 313.
1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 7; Optat. p. 177 sq.
2 The letter that Anulinus sent to the Emperor on this occasion is to be found
in Mansi, 1.6. ii. 488, and more fully in August. Ep. 88.
3 Epist. 88.
4 Upon this demand, see Miinchen, prov. of the Cathed. of Coln, Das erste
Concil von Arles, in the Bonner Zeitschrift fiir Philos. u. Kath. Theol. Heft 9,
S. 88 ἢ
5 7.c, p. 22,
6 This letter is found in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 5. Dr. Miinchen (/.c. pp. 90,
39) proves by this letter, and by all Constantine’s conduct, that this prince had
a) intention of mixing in the inner affairs of the Church.
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 179
Synod at Rome (313).
Cecilian was invited to be present at this Synod, with ten
bishops of his obedience. His adversaries were to send an
equal number; and at their head stood Donatus of Cas
Nieree. The conferences began at the Lateran Palace, belong-
ing to the Empress Fausta, on October 2, 313, and lasted
three days. The first day Donatus and his friends were first of
all to prove their accusations against Cecilian ; but they could
produce neither witnesses nor documents: those whom Donatus
himself had brought to witness against Cecilian, declared that
they knew nothing against the bishop, and therefore were not
brought forward by Donatus. On the contrary, it was proved
that, when Cecilian was only a deacon, Donatus had excited
divisions in Carthage; that he had re-baptized Christians who
had been baptized before; and, contrary to the rules of the
Church, had laid hands on fallen bishops to reinstate them in
their offices. The second day the Donatists produced a second
accusation against Cecilian; but they could no more prove
their assertions than on the previous day. The continuation
of an inquiry already begun concerning the unlawful Council
of Carthage of 312, which had deposed Cecilian, was inter-
rupted. As Donatus was totally unable on the third day, as
on the two preceding, to produce a single witness, Cecilian was
declared innocent, and Donatus condemned on his own con-
fession. No judgment was pronounced on the other bishops
of his party. The Synod, on the contrary, declared that if they
would return to the unity of the Church, they might retain
their thrones ; that in every place where there was a Cecilian
and a Donatist bishop, the one who had been the longest
ordained should remain at the head of the Church, whilst the
younger should be set over another diocese. ‘This decision of
the Synod was proclaimed by its president the Bishop of
Nome, and communicated to the Emperor.
After the close of the Synod, Donatus and Cecilian were
oth forbidden to return to Africa at once. Cecilian was de-
. See Constantine’s letter quoted above.
2 Optat. lc. pp. 22-24; August. Zp. 43; and Breviculus collat. Carthag. ciel
aii. c. 12 sq. ; and Lidell, " Synod. in Mansi, ii. 486, in Hard. v. 1499,
180 >’ WISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.) 1: Ὁ
tained at Brescia for a time. Some time afterwards, however
Donatus obtained permission to go to Africa, but not to
Carthage. But the Pope, or perhaps the Synod before closing,
sent two bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, to Africa, to prc-
claim that that was the catholic party for which the nineteen
bishops assembled at Rome had pronounced. We see from
this that the mission of the two bishops was to promulgate
the decisions of the Synod; we also think, with Dupin, that
their journey, the date of which is uncertain, took place im-
mediately after the close of the Synod of Rome. The two
bishops entered into communion with Cecilian’s clergy at
Carthage ; but the Donatists endeavoured to prevent~ the
bishops from accomplishing their mission ; and some time after,
as Donatus had returned to Carthage, Cecilian also returned to
his flock.’ nt ati
New troubles soon agitated Africa, and the Donatists again
brought complaints of Cecilian before the Emperor. Irritated
with their obstinacy, Constantine at first simply referred them
to the decision of the Synod of Rome;”’ and when they re-
plied by protesting that they had not been sufficiently listened
to at Rome, Constantine decided, first, that a minute in-
quiry should be made as to whether Felix of Aptunga had
really given up the Holy Scriptures (we have given above the
result of this inquiry); next, that the whole controversy
should be definitely settled by a great assembly of the bishops
ot Christendom; and consequently he called the bishops of his
empire together for the 1st of August 314, to the Council of
Arles in Gaul.
Src. 15. Synod of Arles in Gaul (314).
Cecilian and some of his friends, as well as some deputies
of the party of the Donatists, were invited to this Council
and the officials of the empire were charged to defray the ex-
penses of the voyage of these bishops, Constantine specially
Πα Optat. Le. p. 25 and p. vi 2 See Optat. p. 181, ed. Dupin.
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 5; Mansi, 1.6. ii. 463-468. The best modern work
on the Council of Arles is the dissertation of Dr. Miinchen, in the Bonner
ZLeitschr. already mentioned, Heft 9, S. 78 ff. ; Heft 26, S. 49 if. ; Heft 27,
S. 42 ff : in
SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL* 181
invited several bishops, amongst others the Bishop οὗ Syra-
cuse.' According to some traditions, there were no fewer
than 600 bishops assembled at Arles.” Baronius, relying on
a false reading in 8. Augustine, fixes the number at 200.
Dupin thought there were only thirty-three bishops at Arles,
because that is the number indicated by the title of the letter
of the Synod addressed to Pope Silvester? and by the list
of persons* which is found in several mss. Ν otwithstanding
this comparatively small number, we may say that all the
provinces of Constantine’s empire were. represented at the
Council. Besides these thirty-three bishops, the list. of persons
also mentions a considerable number ‘of: priests and deacons,
of whom some accompanied their bishops, and others repre-
sented their absent bishops as their proxies. Thus Pope Sil-
vester was represented by two priests, Claudianus and Vitus,
two deacons, Eugenius and Cyriacus.® Marinus of Arles, one
of the three judges (jaudices ex Gallia), who had been appointed
beforehand by the Emperor, appears to have presided over the
assembly: at least his name is found first in the letter of the
Synod.* With Marinus the letter mentions Agreecius of Trier,
Theodore of Aquileia, Proterius of Capua, Vocius of Lyons,
Cecilian of Carthage, Reticius of Autun (one of the earlier
judices ex Gallia), Ambitausus (Imbetausius) of Reims, Merokles
of Milan, Adelfius of London, Maternus of Coln, Liberius of
Emerita in Spain, and others ; the last named having already
been present at the Synod of Blyira
It is seen that a great part of Western Christendom was
represented at Arles by some bishops; and the Emperor Con-
stantine could truly say: “ I have assembled a great number
1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 5, p. 391, ed. Mogunt. ; Mansi, ii. 463 sq. ; Hard.
i; 259 sq. ; and Optat. 1.6, 181 sq. ed. Dupin.
? Mansi, ii. 469, not. a, et p. 478, not. z sq.
_ 3 In Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 261.
*In Mansi, ii. 476 ; Hard. i. 266. It must not be forgotten that this list
<dloes not quite agree with the inscription of the letter'to the Pope, .and that
among the thirty-three names of the synodital. letter some are mentioned in the
list of persons only as those of priests who were representatives of the bishops.
Cf. on this list, which Quesnel has wrongly considered as a copy of the super-
scription of the sy nodical letter, the Ballerinij: in te edition: of ‘thie works of
Leo the Great, ii. 1018 sq., etibid. 851.
ὁ Cf. the list of persons 22 fj gizcon 8 In Mansi, . ἃ 469; ‘Hard. i, 261. >
182 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
of bishops from different and almost innumerable parts-of the
empire.’* We may look on the assembly at Arles as a general
council of the West (or of the Roman patriarchate).? » It ean-
not, however, pass for an cecumenical council, for this reason,
that the other patriarchs did not take any part invit, and
indeed were not invited to it; and those of the. East~espe-
cially, according to S. Augustine,® ignored almost entirely the
Donatist controversy. But has not §. Augustine himself
declared this Council to-be cecumenical ?. In order to answer
this question in the affirmative, an appeal: has. been made to:
the second book of his treatise, De Baptismo contra Dona-
tistas;* where he says: “ The question relating to re-baptism:
was decided against Cyprian, in a full council of the whole
Church” (plenarium concilium, concilium universe Keclesic).”
But it is doubtful whether S. Augustine meant by that the
Council of Arles, or whether he did not rather refer to that of
Nicwa, according to Pagi’s view of the case.° It cannot, how-
ever be denied that S. Augustine, in his forty-third letter
(vii. No. 19), in speaking of the Council of Arles, calls it
plenarium Ecclesic. universe concilium.’ Only it must not be
forgotten that the expression conciliwm plenariwm, or wniwversale,
is often employed in speaking of a national council ;° and
that in the passage quoted S. Augustine refers to the Western .
Church (Leclesia wniversa occidentalis), and not to the universal
Church (universalis) in the fullest sense.
The deliberations of the Council of Arles were opened on
the 1st of August 314. Cecilian and his accusers were pre-
sent ; but these were no more able than before to prove their
accusations. We unfortunately have not in full the acts of
the Council ; but the synodical letter already quoted informs
us that the accusers of Cecilian were aut damnati aut repulsi..
From this information we infer that Cecilian, was, acquitted ;
and this we know to have been the actual result of the Donatist
1 Euseb. Hist, Eccl. χ. ὅ.
3 Cf. Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 314, n. 21.
3 Contra Crescon. lib. iv. ¢. 25 ; Pog Crit. ad ann. 314, n: 17:
Cap. 9,n. 14. Ὁ "δ Opera, viii. 185, ed. Migne.
6 Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 314, n. 18. 7 Opera, ii. 169, ed.’ Migne.
8 Cf. Pagi, lc. n. 19; and Hefele, ** Das Concil von Sardika,” in. the Tibinger
Quartalsch, 1852, S. 406. Cf. also previously, pp. ὃ, 4.
SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL 183
controversy. The Council, in its letter to the Pope, says,
“ that it would have greatly desired that. the Pope (Silvester)
had been able to assist in person at the sessions, and that the
judgement given against Cecilian’s accusers would in that case
certainly have been more severe.”* The Council probably
alluded to the favourable conditions that it had accorded. to
the Donatist bishops ‘and priests, in case they should be recon-
ciled to the Church.
The letter of the Council contains no other information
relating to the affairs of the Donatists. At the time of the
religious conference granted to the Donatists in 411, a letter
of the African bishops? was read, in which they said, that,
“dating from the commencement of the schism (ab ipsius
separationis exordio), consent had been given that every Dona-
tist bishop who should become reconciled to the Church should
alternately exercise the episcopal jurisdiction with the Catholic
bishop: that if either of the two died, the survivor should
be his sole successor; but in the case in which a church did not
wish to have two bishops, both were to resign, and a new one
was to be elected.” From these words, ab tpsius scparationis
_exordio, Tillemont? concluded that it is to the Synod of Arles
that this decision should be referred ; for, as we have already
seen,* other proposals of reconciliation were made at Rome.
It is not known whether the Synod of Arles decided anything
else in the matter of the Donatists. But it is evident that
two, perhaps three, of its twenty-two canons (Nos. 13, 14,
and 8), refer to the schism of the African Church, which we
shall show in examining them one by one.
The Synod of Arles was not satisfied, as their synodal letter
tells us, merely to examine and judge the business of the
Donatists: it wished to lend its assistance in other points
relating to the necessities of the Church, especially to solve
the paschal controversy, the question of the baptism of heretics,
1 Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 262.
? It is the 128th epistle among those of 5. Augustine, ii. 489, ed. Migne.
Cf. Brev. collat. diei i. c. 5, p. 615, t. ix. ed. Migne; et Optat. 250, ed.
Dupin. —
3. Memoires, t. vi. in the Diss. sur les Donatistes, art. xxi. p. 21, ed. Brnux.
1732. a
* Above, p. 179.
184 HISTORY “OF THE COUNCILS.
and: to. promulgate various rules for discipline. . Convineed
that it acted under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it used
the formula, Placwit ergo, presente Spiritu sancto et angelis ejus ;
and begged the Pope, who had the government of the larger
diocese (majoris diceceseos gubernacula) under his control, to pro-
mulgate its decrees universally... The Synod also sent him the
complete collection of its twenty-two canons, while in the
letter previously quoted it had given only a short extract from
them: consequently it may be maintained, with the brothers
Ballerini,” that the Synod addressed two letters to the Pope,
of which the first, commencing -with the enumeration of the
bishops present, dwelt chiefly on the affairs of the Donatists,
and gave but a short sketch of the other decisions ; while the
second included literally and exclusively all the decrees, and
addressed itself to the Pope only in the words of introduction,
and in the first canon. The Benedictines of S. Maur have
published the best text of this second synodical letter,and of
the canons of the Council of Arles, in the first volume of their
Collectio conciliorum Galliew of 1789, of which the sequel un-
fortunately has not appeared.’ We shall adopt this text:
Domino sanctissimo fratri Silvestro Marinus vel ccetus epis-
coporum qui adunati fuerunt in oppido Arelatensi. Quid de-
crevimus communi consilio caritati tue significamus, ut omnes
sciant quid in futurum observare debeant.
CAN. 1. Ut uno die et tempore Pascha celebrctur.
Primo loco de observatione Paschze Domini, ut uno die et
uno tempore per omnem orbem a nobis observetur et juxia
consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas.
By this canon the Council of Arles wished to make the
Roman computation of time with regard to Easter the rule
everywhere, and consequently to abolish that of Alexandria,
and all others that might differ from it, taking for granted that
the bishops of the Council knew the difference that. existed
1 In Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 261 sq.
? In their editicn of the works of Leo the Great, ii, 1019.
τ Reprinted i in Bruns’ Bibliotheca ecclesiastica, vol. i. P. ii. p.107. The pas-
sage, as given less accurately in the ancient collections of councils, is found in
Mansi, ii. 471 sq., Hard. i. 263 sq
SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL 185
between these and the Roman computation. “We will not
here give the details relating to the paschal controversy, but
further on in the history of the Council of Nicza, so as the
better to grasp the whole meaning.’ nes
Can. 2, Ut ubt quisque ordinatur ibi permaneat.
De his qui in quibuscumque locis ordinati fuerint ministri,
in ipsis locis perseverent.
The twenty-first canon contains. the same decision, with
this difference, that the former speaks only of the inferior
ministers of the Church (ministri), while the latter speaks of
the priests and deacons; and both express the view οἵ the
ancient Church, in accordance with which an ecclesiastic at-
tached to one church ought not to change to another. We
jind the same prohibition even in the apostolic canons (Nos.
15 and 14, or 14 and 15); and in the fifteenth canon of
Nica. It is questioned whether this canon of Arles forbids
only passing from one diocese to another, or if it. forbade
moving from one church to another in the same diocese. Dr.
Miuimchen understood the canon in the latter sense, founding
his opmion on the seventy-seventh canon of the Synod of
Elvira? which shows that each church in a diocese had its
own minister.” Of course the prohibition as to a change of
churches in the same diocese, necessarily applies to moving
from one diocese to another.
CAN. 3. Ut qui in pace arma projwiunt excommunicentur.
De his qui arma projiciunt in pace, placuit abstineri eos a
communione.
_ This canon has been interpreted i in no less than four ways.
Ivo of Chartres read, instead of in pace, in prelio; and an
ancient manuscript, which was compared by Surius, read in
bello, In this case the sense would be: “ He who throws
down his arms in war is excommunicated.” Sirmond tried a
second explanation, taking the view that arma projicere is not
* Cf. the diss. of Hefele, Osterfeierstreit (Controversy on the subject: of the
Easter F Feast), in the Freibur. ger Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii. 5. 871 ff.
* In his diss. ΓΝ — in the Bonner Zeitschr vt Heft 26, S. 61 ff. -
Cl alvove, p.170. τ.
186 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
synonymous with arma abjicere, and signifies arma in alium
conjicere." Thus, according to him, the canon forbids the use
of arms except in case of war. Dr. Miinchen has developed
this explanation, by applying the sentence arma projicere in
pace to the fights of the gladiators, and he has considered this
canon as a prohibition of these games. Constantine the Great,
he says, forbade on the 1st October 325 the games of the
gladiators in nearly the same terms: Cruenta spectacula in otio
civilt et domestica quiete non placent ; quapropter omnino gladi-
atores esse prohibemus. Besides these, adds Miinchen, the two
following canons are directed against the spectacula which
were so odious to the early Christians; and this connection
also justifies the opinion that canon 3 refers to the spectacula,
that is to say, to the fights of the gladiators.? Aubespine has
tried a fourth explanation. Many Christians, says he, under
the pagan emperors, had religious scruples with regard to
military service, and positively refused to take arms, or else
deserted. The Synod, in considering the changes introduced by
Constantine, set forth the obligation that Christians have to
serve in war, and that because the Church is at peace (im pace)
under a prince friendly to Christians.® This explanation has
been adopted, amongst others, by Rémi Ceillier’ by Herbst, in
the Dictionnaire des conciles of Abbé Migne,® and in Abbé
Guetté’s recently published Histoire de léglise de France.’ We,
however, prefer Dr. Miinchen’s view of the matter.
Can. 4. Ut aurige dum agitant excomnvunicentur.
De agitatoribus qui fideles sunt, placuit eos quamdiu agi-
tant a communione separari.
These agitators are the jockeys and grooms of the courses,
identical with the awrige of the sixty-second canon of the
Council of Elvira. In the same way that the preceding
canon interdicted the games of the gladiators, which were
celebrated in the amphitheatre, so this prohibits the racing of
horses and chariots, which took place in. the circus.
1 Mansi, ii. 481 sq. ᾿ 2 Miinchen, in the diss. quoted above.
3 See the notes of Aubespine, in Mansi, ii. 492. - 7
4 Histoire des auteurs sacrés, iii, 705. 5 Tiib. Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 666.
ST. i. p. 199. Paris 1847. 7T. i. p. 64. Paris 1847.
SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL. 187
Can. 5. Ut theatrict quamdiu agunt excommunicentur,
De theatricis, et ipsos placuit quamdiu agunt a communione:
separari. ot
This canon excommunicates those who are employed in the
theatres."
Can, 6. Ut in infirmitate conversi manus impositionem
accipiant.
De his qui in infirmitate credere volunt, placuit iis debere
manum imponi. !
The thirty-ninth canon of Elvira expresses itself in the
same manner; and in commenting” upon it, we have said that
the words manum iwmpont were understood by one party as a
simple ceremony of admission to the order of catechumens
without baptism; by others, especially by Dr. Miinchen, as
expressing the administration of confirmation.
Can. 7. De jidelibus qui presides fiunt vel rem publicam
agere volunt.
De preesidibus qui fideles ad preesidatum prosiliunt, placuit
ut cum promoti fuerint literas accipiant ecclesiasticas com-
municatorias, ita tamen ut in quibuscumque locis gesserint,
ab episcopo ejusdem loci cura illis agatur, et cum cceperint
contra disciplinam agere, tum demum a communione exclu-
dantur. Similiter et de his qui rempublicam agere volunt.
Like the preceding one, this canon repeats a similar statute
of the Synod of Elvira. The fifty-sixth canon of Elvira had
decreed that a Christian invested with a public office should
abstain from appearing in church during the term of these:
duties, because these necessarily brought him into contact
with paganism.’ But since the Council of Elvira an essential
change had taken place. Constantine had himself gone. over
to Christianity ; the Church had obtained full liberty; and if
even before this time Christians had often been invested with
public offices,* this would henceforth be much more frequently
? On this hatred of the first Christians for the stage and gaming, cf. Tiib.
Quartalschrift, 1841, 8. 396 ff. .
2 Above, p. 153 f. 3 See above, p. 161.
4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. viii. 1.
13s HISTORY OF THE, COUNCILS,’
the case. It was necessary that, under a’ Cliristian*emperor
and altered circumstances, the ancient rigour should be re-
laxed, and it is for this reason that the canon of Arles modi-
fied the decree of Elvira. If a Christian, it says, becomes
preses, that is to say, governor, he is not, as heretofore, obliged:
to absent himself from church; on the contrary, letters of
recommendation: will be given’ him to the bishop of the
country which is entrusted to his care (the governors were
sent out of their native country, that they might rule more
impartially). The bishop was bound to extend his care over
him, that is to say, to watch over him, assist him with his
advice, that he might commit no injustice in an office which.
included the jus gladii. If he did not listen to the warnings:
of the bishop, if he really violated Christian discipline, then
only was he to be excluded from the Church. . The same line
of conduct was adhered to in regard of the municipal authori-:
ties as towards the imperial officers.!. Baronius has erroneously
interpreted this canon, in making it exclude heretics and
schismatics from holding public offices.”
CAN. 8. De baptismo ecorwm qui ab heresi convertuntur.
De Afris quod propria lege sua utuntur ut rebaptizent,
placuit ut si ad Ecclesiam aliquis de heeresi venerit, interro-
cent eum symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre et Filio
et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur
ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod si interrogatus. non re-
sponderit hance Trinitatem, baptizetur. | L at ‘Je
We have already seen® that several African synods, held
under Agrippinus and Cyprian, ordered that whoever had been
baptized by a heretic, was to be re-baptized on re-entering the
Church. The Council of Arles abolished this law (lew) of the
Africans, and decreed that one who. had received baptism
from heretics in the name of the holy Trinity was not to be
‘4 Cf, Dr. Miinchen, 1... Heft 27, 8. 42; Migne, Dict. des Concil. i. 193.
2 Baron. ad an. 314, n. 57. The opinion of Baronius (ibid. No. 53), that
Constantine was present at the Council of Aries, is not defensible. He thinks
this~conclusion can be drawn from a text of Eusebius ( Vita Const. i. 44) ;, but
this passage speaks only in general terms of the presence of the Emperor at the
Council, and evidently refers to the Council of Nicea.
3 Pp. 86 98 if.
SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL 189
again baptized, but simply to receive the imposition of hands,
ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Thus, as we have already said,
the imposition of hands on those converted was ad penitentiam
and ad confirmationem... The Council of Arles promulgated in
this eighth canon the rule that has always been in force, and
is still preserved in our time, with regard to baptism con-
ferred by heretics: it was adopted and renewed by the nine-
teenth canon of the Gicumenical Council of Nicza.?
In several mss. Arianis is read instead of Afris;* but it is
known that at the time of the first Synod of Arles the sect of
the Arians did not yet exist. Binius has thought, and perhaps
with some reason, that this canon alluded to the Donatists,
and was. intended to refute their opinion on the ordination of
Cecilian by Felix of Aptunga, by laying down this general
principle: “That a sacrament is valid, even when it has been
conferred by an unworthy minister.” There is, however, no
trace of an allusion to the Donatists: it is the thirteenth canon
which clearly settles the particular case of the Donatists, as
to whether a Traditor, one who has delivered up the Holy
Scriptures, can "εν ordain. ©
Can. 9. Ut que confessor un litteras aferunt, alias ac-
cuprant. . ;
- De his qui confessorum literas afferunt, placuit ut sublatis
iis literis alias accipiant communicatorias.
᾿ This canon is a repetition of the twenty-fifth canon of the
= of Elvira.*
“Can. 10. ‘Ut is cujus uxor adulteraverit aliam ula vivente non
accupiat.
De his qui conjuges suas in adulterio ΕΣ an et
lidem sunt. .adolescentes fideles et prohibentur’ nubere, placuit
ut in quantum possit consilium iis detur, ne viventibus uxori-
bus suis licet adulteris alias accipiant.. met |
In reference to the ninth canon of: Elvira, the Sct 0 of
“TP. 118. ᾿
3 Cf. also the pretended aerentlk 6 canon of the second icumenizal Comneil of
Constantinople-in 381... _
3 Mansi, ii. 472. _ ACE above, p. 146.
190 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Arles has in view simply the case of a man putting away his
adulterous wife ; whilst, on the contrary, the Council of Elvira
refers to the case of a woman leaving her adulterous husband.
In both cases the two Councils alike depart from the existing
civil law,’ by refusing to the innocent party the right of marry-
ing again. But there is the noteworthy difference, that the
right of re-marrying is forbidden to the woman, under penalty
of permanent excommunication (can. 9 of Elvira); while the
man is only strongly advised (in quantwm wpossit consilium iis
detur) not to marry again. Even in this case marriage is not
allowed, as is shown by the expression et prohibentur nubere.
This Synod will not allow that which has been forbidden, but
only abstains from imposing ecclesiastical penance. Why is it
more considerate to the man? Undoubtedly because the
existing civil law gave greater liberty to the husband than to
the wife, and did not regard the connection of a married man
with an unmarried woman as adultery.
It may be observed that Petavius,’ instead of et prohibentur
nubere, prefers to read et non prohibentur nubere, which would
mean that, while they were not prohibited from marrying, they
should be strongly recommended not to do so.
Can. 11. De puellis quee gentilibus junguntur.
De puellis fidelibus que gentilibus junguntur placuit, ut
aliquanto tempore a. communione separentur.
This canon is evidently related to the fifteenth canon of
Elvira, with, however, this difference, that the canon of Elvira
chiefly relates to the parents, while that of Arles rather con-
cerns daughters. This, too, enforces a penalty, which the
other does not.’
CAN. 12. Ut clerict faneratores excomnunicentur.
De ministris qui feenerant, placuit eos juxta formam divini-
tus datam a communione abstineri.
1 Fr. q. Ὁ. de Divort. (24. 2); Miinchen, Uc. S. 58.
2 Const. c. i. ad leg. Tul. (9. 9); Miinchen, lc. 5. 58. It was not until the
year 449 that the position of man and wife was put on the same footing in this
respect.
3 In his ed. of Epiphanius, Heres. 59, c. 3, t. ii. app. p. 255.
4 Cf. Miinchen, l.c. S. 63.
“SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL. 191
' This canon is almost iterslly om with the first pars of
the twentieth canon of Elvira." )
CAN. 13. De ws qui Scripturas sacras, vasa dominica, vel
nomina fratrum tradidisse dicuntur.
De his qui Scripturas sanctas tradidisse dicuntur vel vasa
dominica vel nomina fratrum suorum, placuit nobis ut qui-
-cumque, eorum ex actis publicis fuerit detectus, non verbis
nudis, ab, ordine cleri amoveatur; nam si iidem aliquos ordi-
nasse fuerint deprehensi, et hi quos ordinaverunt rationales
subsistunt, non illis obsit ordinatio. Et quoniam multi sunt
qui contra ecclesiasticam regulam pugnare videntur et per
testes redemptos putant se ad accusationem admitti debere,
omnino non admittantur, nisi, ut supra diximus, actis publicis
docuerint.
The Emperor Diocletian had ordered, by his first edict for
persecution in 303, first, that all the churches were to be
destroyed; secondly, that all sacred books were to be burnt;
thirdly, that Christians were to be deprived of all rights and
all honours; and that when they were slaves, they were to be
declared incapable of acquiring liberty.?. Consequently Chris-
tians were everywhere required to give up the holy books to
be burnt, and the sacred vases to be confiscated by the trea-
sury (ad fisewm). This canon mentions these two demands,
and, besides these, the traditio nominum. It may be that,
according to the first edict, some Christians, and especially the
bishops, were required to remit the lists of the faithful be-
longing to their dioceses, in order to subject them. to the de-
cree which deprived them of all rights and honour. However,
Dr. Miinchen’ thinks that the traditio nominuwm was first in-
troduced in consequence of Diocletian’s second edict. This
edict ordered that all ecclesiastics should be imprisoned, and
compelled to sacrifice. Many tried to escape the danger by
flight; but it also happened that many were betrayed, and
their names (nomina fratrum) given up to the heathen. The
thirteenth canon orders the deposition of these Zvraditores, if
1 Cf. Miinchen, l.c. S. 65.
* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. viii. 2; Lactant. de Mortibus persec. ὃ, ὃ.
56. S. 70.
192 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
they are ecclesiastics. But this penalty was only to be in-
flicted in case the offence of ¢raditio was proved, not merely
by private denunciations (verbis nudis), but by the public
laws, by writings signed by officers of justice (cx actis publics),
which the Roman officers had to draw up i in executing the
Emperor's edict.
The Synod occupied itself with this question: * What
must be done if a traditor bishop has ordained clergy ?”
This was precisely the principal question in the contro-
versy with the Donatists; and the Synod decided “that the
ordination should be valid, that is, that whoever should be
ordained by such a bishop should not suffer from it” (non
allis obsit ordinatio). This part of the passage is very plain,
and clearly indicates the solution given by the Council; but
the preceding words, οὐ hi, qguos ordinaverunt, rationales sub-
sistunt, are difficult to explain. They may very well mean,
“Tf those who have been ordained by them are worthy, and fit
to receive holy orders;” but we read in a certain number of
MsS., e¢ de his, quos ordinaverint, ratio subsistit, that 15. to say,
“Tf those are in question who have been ordained by them.”
This canon has another conclusion which touches the Dona-
tist controversy ; namely: “ Accusers who, contrary to all the
Church’s rules, procured paid witnesses to prove their accusa-
tions, as the adversaries of Felix of Aptunga have done, ought
not at all to be heard if they cannot prove their complaints “by
the public acts.”
Can. 14. Ut qui falso accusant fratres suos usque ad exitum
excomnrvunicentur.
De his qui falso accusant fratres suos, placuit eos usque ad
exitum non communicare.
This canon is the sequel to the preceding: “If it is proved
that any one has made a positively false and unwarrantable
accusation against another (as a ¢raditor), such a person wil!
be excommunicated to the end of his life.” This canon) is
worded ‘in. so general a manner, that it not only embraces the
false denunciations on the particular case of the traditie, but
all false denunciations in general, as the seventy: -fifth canon of
the Synod of Elvira had mlreadly done.
SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL, 193
Can. 15. Ut diacones non offerant.
De diaconibus quos cognovimus multis locis offerre, placuit
minime fieri debere.
During the persecution of Diocletian, a certain number of
deacons seem to have assumed to themselves the right of offer-
ing the holy sacrifice, especially when there was no bishop or
priest at hand. The Synod of Arles prohibited this. It will be
seen that in this canon we translate offerre as “to offer the
holy sacrifice,” in the same sense as this word is used in the
nineteenth canon. Binterim’ gives another interpretation.
By offerre he understands the administration of the Eucharist
to the faithful; and he explains the canon in this sense: “The
deacons ought not to administer the communion to the faith-
ful in various places, but only in the churches which are
assigned to them.” We must allow that offerre has sometimes
this meaning ; for example, in S. Cyprian, de Lapsis: Solem-
aibus adinypletis calicem diaconus offerre preesentibus cept ; but,
a. It is difficult to suppose that the Synod of Arles should
have employed the expression offev7e in two senses so essen-
tially different—in the fifteenth canon, where it would mean ¢o
administer the Eucharist, and in the nineteenth canon, where
it would mean ¢o offer the holy sacrifice—without having in
either pointed out this difference more clearly.
b. The Synod evidently wished to put an end to a serious
abuse, as it says, Minime fier debere. Now it could not have
been a very grave offence on the part of the deacons, if, in
consequence of the want of clergy, they had administered the
communion in several places: after all, they would only have
done what they performed ex officio in their own churches.”
Can. 16. Ut ubi quisque furt excommuiicatus, ἰδὲ commu-
mionem consequatur.
De his qui pro delicto suo a communione separantur,
placuit ut in quibuscumque locis fuerint exclusi in iisdem
communionem consequantur.
The fifty-third canon of the Synod of Elvira had already
1 Memorabilia, ὃ, i. P. i. p. 360.
5 Cf. our observations on the eightcenth canon of Nicsea, and the discussion
of Dr. Miinchen, 1.6. p. 76.
N
194 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
given the same order. This canon should be compared with
the fifth canon of the Synod of Niczea, the second and sixth
of Antioch (in 341), and with the sixteenth of Sardica.
Can. 17. Ut nullus episcopus aliwm coneulect episcopwm.
Ut nullus episcopus alium episcopum inculcet.
A bishop could in many ways inconvenience, molest (inr-
culcare) a colleague ; especially—
a. If he allowed himself to exercise various episcopal func-
tions in any diocese other than his own; for example, to
ordain clergy, which the Synod of Antioch forbade, in 341,
by its thirteenth canon.
b. If he stayed a long time in a strange town, if he
preached there, and so threw into the shade the bishop of the
place, who might be less able, less learned than himself, for
the sake of obtaining the other’s see; which the eleventh
canon (fourteenth in Latin) of Sardica also forbids.
Can. 18. De diaconibus urbicis ut sine conscientia presbyte-
rorum nihil agant.
De diaconibus urbicis ut non 5101 tantum presumant, sed
honorem presbyteris reservent, ut sine conscientia ipsorum
nihil tale faciant.
The canon does not tell us in what these usurpations of
the town! deacons consisted (in opposition to the deacons
of the country churches, who, being farther from the bishop,
had less influence). The words honorem presbyteris reservent
seem to imply that the Council of Arles referred to the
deacons who, according to the evidence of the. Council of
Nica, forgot their inferiority to the priests, and took rank
and place amongst them, which the Synod of Nicaea” also for-
bade. The Synod of Laodicea also found. it necessary to
order deacons to remain standing in the presence of priests,
unless invited to sit down. The last words of our canon
1 The deacons of the city of Rome were the particular invaders, as Jerome
testifies (Epist. 85, ad Hvagrium). Cf. Van Espen, Commentarius in canones et
decreta, etc. (Colon. 1755), p. 101, in the scholia on the eighteenth canon of
Nicaea. ieyaaado ΤῈ
*ic.
SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL. 195
indicate that here also the allusion is to the functions that
deacons were generally authorized to exercise in virtue of
their charge, such as baptizing and preaching, but which they
were not to discharge unless with the consent of the priests
who were set over them. 3 |
Can. 19. Ut peregrinis episcopis locus sacrificands detur.
De episcopis peregrinis qui in urbem solent venire, placuit
iis locum dare ut offerant.
The seventeenth canon having forbidden bishops to exercise
episcopal functions in a strange diocese, the nineteenth canon
declares that the celebration of the holy sacrifice is not com-
prised in this prohibition, and consequently that a bishop
should be allowed to offer the holy sacrifice in a strange
diocese, or, as we should say, should be permitted to say
Mass.
CAN. 20. δὲ sine tribus episcopis nullus episcopus ordinetur.
De his qui usurpant sibi quod soli debeant episcopos
ordinare, placuit ut nullus hoc sibi presumat nisi assumptis
secum allis septem episcopis. Si tamen non potuerit septem,
infra tres non audeat ordinare.
The Synod of Nicsea, canon 4, made the same regulation,
that all bishops should not singly ordain another bishop, and
orders that there be at least three bishops for this purpose.!
Can. 21. σὲ presbyteri aut diacones qut ad alia loca se
transferunt deponantur.
De presbyteris aut diaconibus qui solent dimittere loca
sta in quibus ordinati sunt et ad alia loca se transferunt,
placuit ut iis locis ministrent quibus preefixi sunt. Quod si
relictis locis suis ad alium se locum transferre voluerint, de-
ponantur. . :
Cf. the second canon, above, p. 185.
CaN. 22. De apostatis qui in infirmitate convmunionem
petunt.
De his qui apostatant et nunquam se ad ecclesiam repre-
1 See, further on, our remarks on the fourth canon of Niceea.
196 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
sentant, ne quidem pcenitentiam agere querunt, et postea in-
firmitate accepti petunt communionem, placuit iis non dandam
communionem nisi revaluerint et egerint dignos fructus poeni-
tentie. |
The Council of Niceea, in its thirteenth canon, softened this
order, and allowed the holy coramunion to be administered to
all sinners at the point of death who should desire it.
Besides these twenty-two canons of the first Synod of
Arles, which are certainly genuine, Mansi found six more in
a Ms. at Lucca. He thought, however, that these last must
have been decreed by another Council of Arles. They are
the following :—
Can. 1 (24)2
Placuit ut quantum potest inhibeatur viro, ne dimissa
uxore vivente liceat ut aliam ducat super eam: quicumque
autem fecerit alienus erit a catholica communione.
Can. 2 (25).
Placuit ut mulierem corruptam clericus non ducat uxorem,
vel is, qui laicus mulierem corruptam duxerit, non admittatur
ad clerum.
Can. 3 (26).
De aliena ecclesia clericum ordinare alibi nullus episcopus
usurpet ; quod si fecerit, sciat se esse judicandum cum inter
fratres de hoc fuerit appetitus.
Can. 4 (27).
Abstentum. clericum aiterius ecclesie alia non admittat ;
sed pacem in ecclesia inter fratres simplicem tenere cognoscat.
Can. 5 (28).
Venientem de Donatistis vel de Montensibus per manus
impositionis suscipiantur, ex eo quod contra ecclesiasticum
ordinem baptizare videntur. |
1 This ms. of Lucca divides the twenty-two genuine canons of Arles into
twenty-three, and consequently counts the first of the spurious canons as the
twenty-fourth. ἡ
SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL. 197
Can. 6 (29).
Preterea, quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, sua-
demus fratribus ut sacerdotes et levitee cum uxoribus suis
non coeant, quia ministerio quotidiano occupantur. Quicum-
que contra hance constitutionem fecerit, a clericatus honore
deponatur.
If we consider, again, the occasion. of this Synod—namely,
the schism of the “‘Donatists—we see that as soon as the
Synod had pronounced its sentence upon them, they appealed
anew to the Emperor, while the Catholic bishops asked per-
mission of him to return to their homes. Constantine there-
upon wrote a beautiful and touching letter to the bishops,
thanking God for His goodness to him, and the bishops for:
the equitable and conciliatory judgment that they had pro--
nounced. He complained of the perverseness, the pride, and
obstinacy of the Donatists, who would not have peace, but ap--
pealed to him from the judgment of the Church, when the sen--
tence of the priests ought to be regarded as that of the Lord’.
Himself (sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi, ac si tpse Domi-.
nus residens judicct). “ What audacity, what madness, what.
folly!” he exclaims; “they have appealed from it like:
heathens.” At the end of his letter he prays the bishops,.
after Christ’s example, to have yet a little patience, and to stay
some time longer at Arles, so as to try and reclaim these mis-
euided men. If this last attempt failed, they might return to
their dioceses; and he prayed them to remember him, that
the Saviour might have mercy upon him. He said that he
had ordered the officers of the empire to send the refractory
from Arles, and from Africa as well, to his court, where great,
severity + awaited them.
These threats caused a great number of Donatists to return
to the Church; others persevered in their obstinacy,’ and,
according to Constantine’s order, were brought to the imperial
court. From that time there was no longer any occasion for
the Catholic bishops to remain at Arles, and in all probabi-
lity they returned to their dioceses. Arrived at court, the
Donatists again prayed the Emperor to judge their cause him-
1 In Hard. i, 268 ; Mansi, ii. 477 ; et Optatus Milev. 184, ed. Dupin,
2Cf. August. Lpist, 88, n. 3.
198 HISTORY. OF THE COUNCILS.
self. Constantine at first refused, but, for reasons with which
we are not acquainted,’ ended by consenting ‘to their demand.
He summoned Cecilian, the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, as
well as his Donatist adversaries, to appear before him at Rome,
where he was staying, in August 315. Ingentius, the false
accuser of Felix of Aptunga, was to be there? to prove to the
Donatists that they had improperly called in question the
consecration of Cecilian; but Cecilian, for some unknown
reason, did not appear. S. Augustine himself did not know
why ;* and the Donatists profited by this circumstance, and
urged the Emperor to condemn Cecilian for disobedience.
Constantine, however, contented himself with granting him a
delay, at the end of which Cecilian was to appear at Milan,
which so exasperated many of the Donatists, that they fled
from the court to Africa. The Emperor for some time thought
of going himself into Africa to judge the cause of the Donatists
in their own country. He accordingly sent back some Donatist
‘bishops into Africa, and warned the others by letter of his
‘project, adding, that if they could prove but one of their
numerous accusations against Cecilian; he would consider such
‘proof as a demonstration of all the rest.* ,
The Emperor afterwards gave up this scheme, and returned
to that which had been first proposed, and in November 316
caused the contending parties to appear before him at Milan.
‘Cecilian presented himself before the Emperor, as well as his
antagonists. The Emperor heard both sides, examined their
<lepositions, and finally declared that Cecilian was innocent,
that his adversaries were calumniators, and sent a copy of his
decision to Eumalius, his vicar in Africa.” The Donatists were
thus condemned three times, by the two Synods of Rome and
of Arles, and finally by the Emperor himself. In spite of this,
to weaken the effect of the late sentence, they spread the
rumour that the celebrated Hosius Bishop of Corduba, a friend
of Cecilian, had prejudiced the Emperor against them.°
The subsequent history of the schism of the Donatists does
* “Coactus,” says S. Augustine, 1.56. Of. Hpist. 43, n. 20.
® See above, p. 176 ff. ΡΩΝ 43, n 20. :
* Opt. Mil. pp. 185, 187, ed. Dup, _ ! § Duy in, Le. p. 187.
ὃ August. Contr. Parmen. lib. i. ὁ, 5. ay
SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 199
not belong to this place ;’ and we have now to. consider two
other synods which were held in the East about the same time
as that of Arles, and which merit all our attention. They are
those of Ancyra and Neocesarea.
Sec. 16. Zhe Synod of Ancyra in 314.
Maximilian having died during the summer of 313, the
Church in the East began to breathe freely, says Euscbius.? He
says nothing further about these Synods; but one of the first,
and certainly the most celebrated, of these Councils, was that
of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, which was held for the pur-
pose of healing the wounds inflicted on the Church by the last
persecution, and especially to see what could be done on the
subject of the lapsz.
The best Greek mss. of the canons of Ancyra contain a very
ancient preface, which shows, without further specification,
that the Council of Ancyra was held before that of Nicza.
The presence of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch at the Council of
Ancyra® proves that it was held before the year 319, which is
the year of the death of that bishop. It is, then, between
313 and 319 that it was held.* Binius® believes he has dis-
covered a still more exact date, in the fact of the presence
of Basil Bishop of Amasia at our Synod. According to his
opinion, this bishop suffered martyrdom in 316, under the
Emperor Licinius ; but Tillemont has proved that he was pro-
bably not martyred till 320.°
It appears from the sixth canon of Ancyra that the Council
was held, conformably to the apostolic canons, No. 38 (36), in
the fourth week after Easter. Maximin having died during
the summer of 3153, the first Penteevost after his death fell in
314; and it is very probable that the Christians immediately
availed themselves of the liberty which his death gave them
to come to the aid of the Church.
ΟΊ ΘΝ, the author’s article “ Donatisten,” in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer
and Welte, Bd. iii.
2 Euseb. Hist. Hecl. x. 3.
ὅ Cf. the list of the members of the Counc:] in Mansi, ii. 584; in Hard.
i. 279.
4 Cf. Tillemont, Mém. etc. vi. 85. δ In Mansi, Collect. Concil. ii. 536,
* 6 Tillemont, Mémoires, etc. v. 219, 220.
200 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
This is also what the words of Eusebius clearly indicate.?
Baronius,? Tillemont,’® Rémi Ceillier’ and. others, were there-
fore perfectly right in placing the Synod of Ancyra after the
Easter which followed the death of Maximin; consequently
in 314,
We have three lists of the bishops who were present at the
Synod of Ancyra. They differ considerably from one another.
That which, in addition to the bishops and the towns, names
the provinces,’ is evidently, as the Ballerini have shown, of
later origin: for (a) no Greek Ms. contains this list; (@) it is
wanting in the most ancient Latin translations; (y) the lists
of the provinces are frequently at variance with the civil
division of the province at this time. For instance, the list
speaks of a Galatia prima, of a Cappadocia prima, of a Cilicia
prima and secunda, of a Phrygia Pacatiana, all divisions which
did not then exist.° Another list of the bishops who were
present at Ancyra, but without showing the provinces, is found
in the Prisca and in the Isidorian collection. Dionysius the
Less does not give a list of the persons: one of this kind has
not, until lately, been attached to his writings.’
In this state of things, it is evident that none of these lists
are of great value, as they vary so much from each other even
as to the number of the bishops, which is left undecided, being
put down between twelve and eighteen. In the longest list
the following names are found: Vitalis of Antioch, Agricolaus
of Cesarea in Palestine, Marcellus of Ancyra, who had become
so famous in the Arian controversy, Lupus of Tarsus, Basil of
Amasia, Philadelphius of Juliopolis in Galatia, Eustolius of
Nicomedia, Heraclius of Tela in Great Armenia, Peter of Ico-
nium, Nunechius of Laodicea in Phrygia, Sergianus of Antioch
in Pisidia, Epidaurus of Perga in Pamphilia, Narcissus of
Neronias in Cilicia, Leontius of Czesarea in Cappadocia, Longinus
of Neocesarea in Pontus, Amphion of Epiphania in Cilicia,
Salamenus of Germanicia in Ccelesyria, and Germanus of
1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 3. * Ad an. 314, n. 77.
3 Mém. vi. 85. 4 TTist. des auteurs sacrés, iii. 718.
5 Printed in Mansi, ii. 534.
6 Cf. Opp. Leonis M. t. iii. p. xxii. ed. Ballerini.
7 Ballerini, lc. et p. 105, not. 1; Hard. i, 279; Mansi, ii. 527, not. 15
Rémi Ceillier, lc. 714.
SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 20}
Neapolis in Palestine. Several of these were present, eleven
years after, at the first Gicumenical Council of Nicea. They
belonged, as we see, to such different provinces of Asia Minor
and Syria, that the Synod of Ancyra may, in the same sense
as that of Arles, be considered a conciliwm plenariwm, that is,
a general council of the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria.
From the fact that Vitalis of Antioch is mentioned first ( primo
loco), and that Antioch was the most considerable seat of those
who were represented at Ancyra, it is generally concluded
that Vitalis presided over the Synod; and we admit this sup-
position, although the Lzbellus synodicus assigns the presidency:
to Marcellus of Ancyra.*
Can. 1 3
IIpec8 υτέρους τοὺς ἐπιθύσαντας, εἶτα ἐπαναπαλαίσαντας μήτε
9 , \ ’ » “§ > a , ,
ἐκ μεθόδου τινὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἀληθείας, μήτε προκατασκευάσαντας
καὶ ἐπιτηδεύσαντας, καὶ πείσαντας ἵνα δόξωσι μὲν βασάνοις
ὑποβάλλεσθαι, ταύτας δὲ τῷ δοκεῖν καὶ τῷ σχήματι προσαχ-
θῆναι" τούτους ἔδοξε τῆς μὲν τιμῆς τῆς κατὰ τὴν καθέδραν μετέ-
yew, προσφέρειν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἢ ὁμιλεῖν ἢ ὅλως λειτουργεῖν TL τῶν
ἱερατικῶν λειτουργιῶν μὴ ἐξεῖναι."
“Priests who sacrificed (during the persecution), but after-
wards repenting, resumed the combat not only in appearance,
but in reality, shall continue to enjoy the honours of their
office, but they may neither sacrifice or preach, nor fulfil any
priestly office.”
In this translation we have left out a great incidental pro-
position (from μήτε mpoxatacKevacavtas to προσαχθῆναι), be-
1In Mansi, 1.6. p. 589; Hard. v. 1499.
2 We find the Greek text of the canons of Ancyra, together with the old
Latin translations by Dionysius the Less and Isidore, in Hardouin, i. 271,
and Mansi, ii. 514 sqq. In Mansi there is also a more accurate transla-
tion by Gentianus Hervetus. The Greek text is also found in the medieval
Greek commentaries of Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenus, quoted by Beveridge,
Synodicon, seu Pand-cte canon. (Oxon. 1672), i. 875 sq. The Greek text of the
canons of Ancyra is also to be found in Bruns, Biblioth. Eccl. i. 66 sqq.
Routh has published it in his Reliquie sacra, iii. 405 sqq., with notes of his
own, and of others, particularly those of Beveridge and Justell. We give here
the ordinary text, and place the most important readings of Routh in brackets.
The canons of Ancyra have also been commented upon by Van Espen, Com-
mentar. in canones et decreta (Colon. 1755), p. 107 sq., and by Herbst in the
Tiibinger Quartalschrift of 1821, S. 413 sq.
202 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
cause to be understood it requires some previous explanations.
Certain. priests who had sacrificed to idols, wishing to be re-
stored to favour, performed a sort of farce to deceive the
bishop and the faithful. They bribed some officers and their
subordinates, then presented themselves before them as Chris-
tians, and pretended to submit to all kinds of tortures, which
were not really, but only apparently applied to them, accord-
ing to the plan which had been previously arranged. The
Council also says: “ Without having made any arrangements,
and without its being understood and agreed that they should
appear to submit to tortures which were only to be apparently
inflicted on them.”
It was quite justifiable, and in accordance with the ancient
and severe discipline of the Church, when this Synod no longer
allowed priests, even when sincerely penitent, to discharge
priestly functions. It was for this same reason that the two
Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides were deposed, and that
the judgment given against them was confirmed in 254 by
an African synod held under 8. Cyprian." The first canon,
together with the second and third, was inserted in the Corpus
juris can?
CAN. 2.
Διακόνους ὁμοίως θύσαντας, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἀναπαλαίσαντας
τὴν μὲν ἄλλην τιμὴν ἔχειν, πεπαῦσθαι δὲ αὐτοὺς πάσης τῆς
ἱερᾶς λειτουργίας, τῆς τε τοῦ ἄρτον ἢ ποτήριον ἀναφέρειν ἢ
κηρύσσειν, εἰ μέντοι τινὲς τῶν ἐπισκόπων τούτοις συνίδοιεν κά-
ματόν τινα i) ταπείνωσιν πραότητος καὶ ἐθέλοιεν πλεῖόν τι δι-
δόναι ἢ ἀφαιρεῖν, ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς εἶναι τὴν ἐξουσίαν.
“In the same manner, the deacons who may have sacri-
ficed, but have afterwards returned to the fight, shall keep
the dignities of their office, but shall no longer fulfil any holy
function, shall no longer offer the bread and wine (to the cele-
brant or to the communicants), shall no longer preach. But
if any bishops, out of regard to their efforts (for their ardent
penitence), and to their humiliation, wish to grant them more
privileges, or to withdraw more from them, they have power
to do so.”
According to this, such deacons could no longer exercise
1 See above, ch. 5. fs ; 2C. 32, dist. bu.
οὐ SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 203
their ministry in the Church, but they continued their offices
as almoners to the poor, and administrators of the property of
the Church, ete. ete. It is doubtful what is meant by “to
offer the bread and the chalice.” In the primitive Church,
S. Justin! testifies that the deacons distributed the holy
communion to the laity. It is possible that the canon refers
to this distribution. Van Espen, however, thinks that, at
the time of the Synod, deacons no longer distributed the con-
secrated bread to the faithful, but only the chalice, according to
a prescription of the Apostolic Constitutions, and an expression
of Cyprian ;* so that dvapdpew ἄρτον ἢ ποτήριον (because
there is mention of ἄρτον, bread) must here relate to the pre-
sentation of the bread and the chalice made by the deacon
to the bishop or priest who celebrated at the time of the
offertory. But it seems from the eighteenth canon of Nicea,
that this primitive custom, in virtue of which deacons also
distributed the eucharistic bread as well as wine, had not
entirely disappeared at the beginning of the fourth century,
and consequently at the time of the Synod of Ancyra.
The word κηρύσσειν, to proclaim, needs explanation. It
means in the first place the act of preaching; that is declared
to be forbidden to diaconis lapsis. But deacons had, and still
have, other things to proclaim (κηρύσσειν). They read the
Gospel, they exclaimed: Flectamus genua, Procedamus im pace,
Ne quis audientium, Ne quis infideliwm ; ὃ and these functions
were also comprised in the κηρύσσειν."
Finally, the canon directs bishops to take into considera-
tion the circumstances and the worth of the diaconc lapsi in
adding to or deducting from the measures decreed against
them.
CAN. 3.
Τοὺς φεύγοντας καὶ συλληφθέντας i} ὑπὸ οἰκείων παραδο-
θέντας ἢ ἄλλως τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ἀφαιρεθέντας ἢ ὑπομείναντας
βασάνους ἢ εἰς δεσμωτήριον ἐμβληθέντας βοῶντάς τε ὅτι εἰσὶ
1 Apolog. i. n. 65 and 67. 2 Commentar. l.c. p. 108.
3 Lib. viii. c. 13.
4 See above, the remarks on the fifteenth canon of Arles, and further on, the
ecmmentary on the eighteenth canon of Nicxa.
5 Const. Apost. vill. 5. | 6 Van Espen, Le
204 ἰ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Χριστιανοὶ καὶ περισχισθέντας (περισχεθέντας) ἤτοι εἰς τὰς
χεῖρας πρὸς βίαν ἐμβαλλόντων τῶν βιαζομένων ἢ βρῶμά τι
πρὸς ἀνάγκην δεξαμένους, ὁμολογοῦντας δὲ διόλου ὅτι εἰσὶ Χρισ-
τιανοὶ, καὶ τὸ πένθος τοῦ συμβάντος ἀεὶ ἐπιδεικνυμένους τῇ πάσῃ
καταστολῇ καὶ τῷ σχήματι καὶ τῇ τοῦ βίου ταπεινότητι" τούτους
ὡς ἔξω ἁμαρτήματος ὄντας τῆς κοινωνίας μὴ κωλύεσθαι, εἰ δὲ
καὶ ἐκωλύθησαν ὑπό τινος, περισσοτέρας ἀκριβείας ἕνεκεν ἢ καί
τίνων ἀγνοίᾳ, εὐθὺς προσδεχθῆναι τοῦτο δὲ ὁμοίως ἐπί τε τῶν
ἐκ τοῦ κλήρου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων λαϊκῶν, προσεξητάσθη δὲ κἀκεῖνο,
εἰ δύνανται καὶ λαικοὶ τῇ αὐτῇ ἀνάγκῃ ὑποπεσόντες προσάγεσθαι
εἰς τάξιν: ἔδοξεν οὖν καὶ τούτους ὡς μηδὲν ἡμαρτηκότας, εἰ
καὶ ἡ προλαβοῦσα εὑρίσκοιτο ὀρθὴ τοῦ βίου πολιτεία, προχειρί-
ζεσθαι.
“Those who fled before persecution, but were caught, or
were betrayed by those of their own houses, or in any other
way, who have borne with resignation the confiscation of their
property, tortures, and imprisonment, declaring themselves to
be Christians, but who have subsequently been vanquished,
whether their oppressors have by force put incense into their
hands, or have compelled them to take in their mouth the
meat offered to idols, and who, in spite of this, have perse-
vered in avowing themselves Christians, and have evinced
their sorrow for what had befallen them by their dejection
and humility,—such, not having committed any fault, are not
to be deprived of the communion of the Church; and if they
have been so treated by the over-severity or ignorance of
their bishop, they are immediately to be reinstated. This
apples equally to the clergy and to the laity. In the same
way it was to be inquired if the laity, to whom violence has
been used (that is to say, who have been physically obliged
to sacrifice), might be promoted to the ministry (τάξις, ordo) ;
and it was decreed that, not having committed any fault (in
the case of these sacrifices), they might be elected, provided
their former life was found to be consistent.”
The meaniag of this canon is clear: “ Physical constraint.
relieves from responsibility.” That there had been physical
constraint was proved in the following ways :—
(a.) By the previous endurance with which they had borne
confiscation, tortures, and imprisonment.
SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 205:
(8.) By this, that during their sufferings they had always
declared themselves Christians.
Among the expressions of this canon the word περίσχισ-
θέντας of the textus vulgatus presents the chief difficulties,
Zonaras translates it thus: “If their clothes have been torn
from their bodies:” for περισχίζω means to tear away, and.
with τινὰ to tear off the clothes from any one. But the true
reading is περισχεθέντας, which Routh has found in three
mss. in the Bodleian Library,’ and which harmonizes the best
with the versions of Dionysius the Less and of Isidore? We
have used this reading (περισχεθέντας) in our translation of
the canon; for περιέχω means to surround, to conquer, to
subdue.
Can. 4.
Περὶ τῶν πρὸς βίαν θυσάντων, ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις καὶ τῶν
δειπνησάντων εἰς τὰ εἴδωλα, ὅσοι μὲν ἀπαγόμενοι καὶ σχήματι
φαιδροτέρῳ ἀνῆλθον καὶ ἐσθῆτι ἐχρήσαντο πολυτελεστέρᾳ καὶ
μετέσχον τοῦ παρασκευασθέντος δείπνου ἀδιαφόρως, ἔδοξεν ἐνι-
αυτὸν ἀκροᾶσθαι, ὑποπεσεῖν δὲ τρία ἔτη, εὐχῆς δὲ μόνης κοινω-
νῆσαι ἔτη δύο, καὶ τότε ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ τέλειον.
“ Ag to those who have been forced to sacrifice, and who
have besides eaten the meats consecrated to the gods (that is
to say, who have been forced to take part in the feasts off the
sacrifices), the Council decrees, that those who, being forced
to go to the sacrifice, have gone cheerfully, dressed in their
best, and shall there have eaten of it indifferently (as if
there was no difference between this and other meals), shall
remain one year amongst the audientes (second class of
penitents), three years among the suwbstrati (third class of
penitents), shall take part in the prayers (fourth class) for two
years, and then finally be admitted to the complete privileges
of the Church (τὸ τέλειον), that is, to the communion.”®
CAN. 5.
“Ὅσοι δὲ ἀνῆλθον peta ἐσθῆτος πενθικῆς Kal ἀναπεσόντες
ἔφαγον μεταξὺ δι’ ὅχης τῆς ἀνακλίσεως δακρύοντες, εἰ ἐπλή-
1 Nos. 26, 158, and 625. 2 Routh, Reliquice sacra, iii. 423.
3 Cf. Suicer, ad ἢ. v.. Cf..also, on the penitential system of the primitive
Church, Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. ν. Thi. ii. S. 362 ff.
206- HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
ρωσαν τὸν τῆς ὑποπτώσεως τριετῆ χρόνον, χωρὶς προσφορᾶς
δεχθήτωσαν' εἰ δὲ μὴ ἔφαγον, δύο ὑποπεσόντες ἔτη τῷ τρίτῳ᾽
κοινωνησάτωσαν χωρὶς προσφορᾶς, ἵνα τὸ τέλειον τῇ τετραετίᾳ
λάβωσι, τοὺς δὲ ἐπισκόπους ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν τὸν τρόπον τῆς
ἐπιστροφῆς δοκιμάσαντας φιλανθρωπεύεσθαι ἢ πλείονα προσ-
τιθέναι χρόνον' πρὸ πάντων δὲ καὶ ὁ προάγων βίος καὶ ὁ μετὰ
ταῦτα ἐξεταζέσθω, καὶ οὕτως ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπιμετρείσθω.
“ Nevertheless, those who have appeared there (that is, at
the feast of the sacrifices) in mourning habits, who have been
full of grief during the repast, and have wept during the whole
time of the feast, shall be three years amongst the substrati,
and then be admitted, without taking part in the offering ;
but if they have not eaten (and have merely been present at
the feast), they are to be substrate for two years, and the third
year they shall take part in the offering (in the degree of the
consistentes, σύστασις), so as to receive the complement (the
holy communion) in the fourth year. The bishops shall have
the power, after having tried the conduct of each, to mitigate
the penalties, or to extend the time of penitence; but they
must take care to inquire what has passed before and after
their fall, and their clemency must be exercised accordingly.”
We may see that this canon is closely allied to the pre-
ceding one, and that the one explains the other: there only
remains some obscurity arising from the expression χωρὶς
προσφορᾶς. Aubespine thought that there is here a reference
to the offerings which were presented by penitents, in the
hope of obtaining mercy ; but Suicer remarks’ that it is not
so, and that the reference here is certainly to those offerings
which are presented by the faithful during the: sacrifice. (at
the offertory). According to Suicer, the meaning of the canon
would be: “ They may take part in divine worship, but not
actively ;” that is, “they may mingle their offerings with those
of the faithful:” which corresponds with the fourth or last
degree of penitence. But.as those who cannot present their
offerings during the sacrifice are excluded fromthe communion,
the complete meaning of this canon is: “They may. be present
at divine service, but may neither offer nor communicate with
the faithful.” Consequently χωρὶς προσφορᾶς also comprises
1 Thesaurus, 8.v. προσφορά,
SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 207.
the exclusion from the communion; but it does not follow
from this that προσφορὰ means the sacrament of the altar, as
Herbst and Routh have erroneously supposed. The eucharistic
service has, we know, two parts: it is, in the first place, a
sacrifice ; and then, as a reception of the Lord’s Supper, it
is a sacrament. And the whole act may be called προσφορά ;
but the mere reception of the communion cannot be called
mpocgopa. The canon does not clearly point out the time
during which penitents were to remain in the fourth degree
of penitence, except in the case of those who had not actually
eaten of the sacrificed meats. It says, that at the end of a
year they could be received in full, that is to say, at the eucha-
ristic table. The time of penitence is not fixed for those who
had actually eaten the sacrificed meats: perhaps it was also
a year; or it may be they were treated according to the fourth.
canon, that is to say, reduced for two years to the fourth decree
of penitence. The penitents of the fifth canon, less culpable
than those of the fourth, are not, as the latter, condemned to
the second degree of penitence.
Can. 6.
Περὶ τῶν ἀπειλῇ μόνον εἰξάντων κολάσεως καὶ ἀφαιρέσεως
ὑπαρχόντων ἢ μετοικίας καὶ θυσάντων καὶ μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος
καιροῦ μὴ μετανοησάντων μηδὲ ἐπιστρεψάντων, νῦν δὲ παρὰ
τὸν καιρὸν τῆς συνόδου προσελθόντων καὶ εἰς διάνοιαν τῆς ἐπι-
στροφῆς γενομένων, ἔδοξε μέχρι τῆς μεγάλης ἡμέρας εἰς ἀκρόασιν
δεχθῆναι, καὶ μετὰ τὴν μεγάλην ἡμέραν ὑποπεσεῖν τρία ἔτη καὶ
μετὰ ἄλλα δύο ἔτη κοινωνῆσαι χωρὶς προσφορᾶς, καὶ οὕτως
ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ τέλειον, ὥστε τὴν πᾶσαν ἑξαετίαν πληρῶσαι" εἰ
δέ τινες πρὸ τῆς συνόδου ταύτης ἐδέχθησαν εἰς μετάνοιαν, ἀπ᾽
ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου λελογίσθαι αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἑξαετίας'
εἰ μέντοι κίνδυνος καὶ θανάτου προσδοκία ἐκ νόσου ἢ ἄλλης
τινὸς προφάσεως συμβαίη, τούτους ἐπὶ ὅρῳ δεχθῆναι.
“ As to those who yielded on the mere threat of punish-
ment, or of the confiscation of their property, or of exile, and who
have sacrificed, and to this day have not repented or returned,
but who on the occasion of this Synod have repented, and
shall resolve to return, it is decreed, that until the great feast
1 Cf. further on, can. 16,
208. HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
(Easter) they shall be admitted to the degree of audientes;
that they shall after the great feast be substrate for three
years ; then that they shall be admitted, but without taking
part in the sacrifice for two years, and that then only they
shall be admitted to the full service (to the communion), so
that the whole time will be six years. For those who have
been admitted to a course of penitence previous to this Synod,
the six years will be allowed to date from the moment of
its commencement. If they were exposed to any danger, or
threatened with death following any illness, or if there was
any other important reason, they should be admitted, con-
formably to the present prescription (pos).”
The meaning of the last phrase of the canon is, that if the
sick regain their health, they will perform their penance,
according to what is prescribed. Zonaras thus very clearly
explains this passage.’ This canon is made intelligible by the
two preceding. A similar decision is given in the eleventh
Nicene canon.
As we have previously remarked (sec. 16), there is a chro-
nological signification in the expression “ till the next Easter,”
compared with that of “the six years shall be accomplished.”
According to the thirty-sixth (thirty-eighth) apostolic canon,
a synod was to be held annually in the fourth week after
Easter. If, then, a penitent repented at the time of the synod,
and remained among the awdzentes till the next Easter, he had
done penance for nearly a year. And adding three years for
the degree of the substratio, and two for the last degree, the
six years were completed. It is then with good reason that
we have deduced from the sixth canon that the Council of
Ancyra was held shortly after Easter, and very probably in
the fourth week after this feast, that is, in the time prescribed
by the apostolic canons.”
Can. 7.
Περὶ τῶν συνεστιαθέντων ἐν ἑορτῇ ἐθνικῇ ἐν τόπῳ ἀφωρισ-
μένῳ τοῖς ἐθνικοῖς, ἴδια βρώματα ἐπικομισαμένων καὶ φαγόντων,
ἔδοξε διετίαν ὑποπεσόντας δεχθῆναι: Τὸ δὲ εἰ χρὴ μετὰ τῆς
1JIn Bevereg. Synodicon, i. 380. This condition was also imposed by the
Council of Orange in 441, can. 3; in Hard. i. 1784.
3 This sentence is added from the French translation,
SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 209
προσφορᾶς éxacTov τῶν ἐπισκόπὼν δοκῃμάφᾳι καὶ τὸν ἄλλον
βίον ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστου ἀξιῶσαι. |
“ As to those who, during a dnshbvcre festival, have seated
themselves in the locality appointed for that’festival, ‘and have
brought and eaten their food there, they shall be two years
substrati, and then admitted. As to the question of. their
admission to the offering, each bishop shall decide thereon,
taking into consideration the whole life of each person.”
Several Christians tried, with worldly prudence, to take a
middle course. On the one hand, hoping to escape persecution,
they were present at the feasts of the heathen sacrifices, which
were held in the buildings adjoining the temples; and on the
other, in order to appease their consciences, they took their
own food, and touched nothing that had been offered to the
gods. These Christians forgot that S. Paul had ordered’ that
meats sacrificed to the gods should be avoided, not because
they were tainted in themselves, as the idols were nothing,
but from another, and in fact a twofold reason: 1st, Because,
in partaking of them, some had still the idols in their hearts,
that is to say, were still. attached to the worship of idols, and
thereby sinned ; and 2dly, Because others scandalized their
brethren, and sinned in that way. To these two reasons a
third may be added, namely, the hypocrisy and the duplicity
of those Christians who wished to appear heathens, and never-
theless to remain Christians.. The Synod punished them with
two years of penance in the third degree, and gave to each
bishop the right, at the expiration of this time, either to admit
them to communion, or to make them remain some time longer
in the fourth degree.
Can. 8.
Οἱ δὲ δεύτερον καὶ τρίτον θύσαντες μετὰ βίας, τετραετίαν
ὑποπεσέτωσαν, δύο δὲ ἔτη χωρὶς προσφορᾶς κοινωνησάτωσαν,
καὶ τῷ ἑβδόμῳ τελείως δεχθήτωσαν.
“Those who, being compelled, have sacrificed two or three
times, shall remain “substrati for four years; they shall take
part in the worship, without presenting any offering, for two
years (as consistentes of the fourth degree); the seventh they
shall be admitted to the communion.”
11 Cor. viii.
oO
210 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Can. 9.
"“Ooor δὲ μὴ μόνον ἀπέστησαν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπανέστησαν καὶ
ἠνάγκασαν ἀδελφοὺς καὶ αἴτιοὶ ἐγένοντο τοῦ ἀναγκασθῆναι, οὗτοι
ἔτη μὲν τρία τὸν τῆς ἀκροάσεως δεξάσθωσαν τόπον, ἐν δὲ ἄλλῃ
ἑξαετίᾳ τὸν Τῆς ὑποπτώσεως, ἄλλον δὲ ἐνιαυτὸν κοινωνησάτωσαν
χωρὶς προσφορᾶς, ἵνα τὴν δεκαετίαν πληρώσαντες τοῦ τελείου
μετάσχωσιν'" ἐν μέντοι τούτῳ Τῷ χρόνῳ καὶ τὸν ἄλλον αὐτῶν
ἐπιτηρεῖσθαι βίον.
“Those who have not only apostatized, but have become
the enemies of their brethren, and have compelled them (to
apostasy), or have been the cause of the constraint put upon
them, shall remain for three years among the audientes (second
degree), then six years with the substratc; they shall then
take part in the worship, without offering (in quality of con-
sistentes), for one year; and not until the expiration of ten
years shall they receive full communion (the holy Eucharist).
Their conduct during all this time shall also be watched.” *
Can. 10.
Διάκονοι ὅσοι καθίστανται, παρ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν κατάστασιν εἰ
ἐμαρτύραντο καὶ ἔφασαν χρῆναι γαμῆσαι, μὴ δυνάμενοι οὕτως
μένειν, οὗτοι μετὰ ταῦτα γαμήσαντες ἔστωσαν ἐν τῇ ὑπηρεσίᾳ
διὰ τὸ ἐπιτραπῆναι αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου; τοῦτο δὲ εἴ
τινες σιωπήσαντες καὶ καταδεξάμενοι ἐν τῇ χειροτονίᾳ μένειν
οὕτως μετὰ ταῦτα ἦλθον ἐπὶ γάμον, πεπαῦσθαι αὐτοὺς τῆς
διακονίας.
“Tf deacons, at the time of their appointment (election),
declare that they must marry, and that they cannot lead a
celibate life, and if accordingly they marry, they may continue
in their ministry, because the bishop (at the time of their
institution) gave them Jeave to marry; but if at the time of
their election they have not spoken, and have agreed in
taking holy orders to lead a celibate life, and if later they
marry, they shall lose their diaconate.”
This canon has been inserted in the Corpus juris canonici?
1 Cf, the observations on the fourth canon.
2, 8, dist. 28. Cf. Van Espen, Comment. lc. p. 112; Herbst, Z'iibinger
Quartalschr ift, 1821, S. 428, and our observations on the history of Paphnutius
at the Council of Nicwza,
SYNOD'OF ANCYBA. -~ 911
- Can. 11. :
Tas μνηστευθείσας κόρας καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ὑπ’ ἄλλων dpra-
γείσας ἔδοξεν ἀποδίδοσθαι τοῖς προμνηστευσαμένοις, εἰ καὶ βίαν
ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν πάθοιεν.
“ Damsels who are betrothed, who are afterwards carried off
by others, shall be given back to those to whom they are
betrothed, even when they have been treated with violence.”
This canon treats only of betrothed women (by the sponsalia
de futuro), not of those who are married (by the sponsalia de
prescnir). In the case of the latter there would be no doubt
as to the duty of restitution. The man who was betrothed
was, moreover, at liberty to receive his affianced: bride who
had been carried off, or not. It was thus that 5. Basil had
already decided in canon 22 of his canonical letter to Amphi-
lochius.?
Can. 12.
Τοὺς πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τεθυκότας καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα βαπτισ-
θέντας ἔδοξεν εἰς τάξιν προάγεσθαι ὡς ἀπολουσαμένους.
“Those who have sacrificed to the gods before their bap-
tism, and who have afterwards been baptized, may be promoted
to holy orders, as (by baptism) they are purified from all their
former sins,”
This canon does not speak generally of all those who sacri-
ficed before baptism ; for if a heathen sacrificed before having
embraced Christianity, he certainly could not be reproached
for it after his admission. It was quite a different case with
a catechumen, who had already declared for Christianity, but
who during the persecution had lost courage, and sacrificed.
In this case it might be asked whether he could still be ad-
mitted to the priesthood. The Council decided that a baptized
catechumen could afterwards be promoted to holy orders.
The fourteenth canon of Nica also speaks of the catechu-
mens who have committed the same fault.
Can. 13.
, 2. NR - ’ὔ Xx ,
“Χωρεπισκόπους μὴ ἐξεῖναι πρεσβυτέρους ἢ διακόνους χειρο-
τονεῖν, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως, χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπιτραπῆναι
ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μετὰ γραμμάτων ἐν ἑτέρᾳ παροικίᾳ.
Σ᾽ Cf. Van Espen, ἢ δὲ p. 113. *-Cf. Van Espen, lc. p. 118.
212 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
The literal translation of the Greek text is as follows :—
“It is not permitted to the chorepiscopi to ordain priests
and deacons; neither is this permitted to the priests of the
towns in other parishes (dioceses) without the written sania
rity of the bishop of the place.”
In our remarks on the fifty-seventh canon of the Council of
Laodicea, where it is forbidden to appoint chorepiscopi (or
country bishops) for the future, we shall explain what must
be understood by this office, which is here mentioned for the
first time. Compare also the eighth and tenth canons of the
Synod of Antioch in 341; and the second proposition of the
sixth canon of the Council of Sardica. If the first part of the
thirteenth canon is easy to understand, the second, on the con-
trary, presents a great difficulty ; for a priest of a town could
not in any case have the power of consecrating priests and
deacons, least of all in a strange diocese. Many of the most
learner men have, for this reason, supposed that the Greek
text of the second half of the canon, as we have read it, is
incorrect or defective.’ It wants, say they, ποιεῖν τι, or aliquid
agere, .6. to complete a religious function. To confirm this sup-
position, they have appealed to several ancient versions, espe-
cially to that of Isidore: sed nec presbyteris civitatis sine episcopr
precepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine auctoritate literarum
gus im wnaquaque (some read ἐν ἑκάστῃ instead of ἐν ἑτέρᾳ)
parochia aliquid agere. The ancient Roman ms. of the canons,
Codex canonum, has the same reading, only that it has pro-
vineia instead of parochia. Fulgentius Ferrandus, deacon of
Carthage, who long ago made a collection of canons,’ translates
in the same way in his Breviatio canonum: Ut presbytert civi-
tatis sine gussu episcopr nihil gubcant, nec im unaquaque parochia
aliquid agant. Van Espen has explained this canon in the
same way.
Routh has given another interpretation.* He maintained
that there was not a word missing in this canon, but that at
the commencement one ought to read, according to several
1 Cf. Bevereg. Synodicum, ii., Append. p. 177; Van Espen, /.c. p. 113.
2 In the edition of the Ballerini of the works of 8. Leo, iii. 110 sq.
3 Fulgentius Ferrandus, sec. 6.
4 Reliquie sacra, iii. 432 sq.
SYNOD OF ANCYKA. 213
NSS., χωρεπισκόύποις in the dative, and further down ἀλλὰ μὴν
μηδὲ instead of ἀλλὰ μηδὲ, then πρεσβυτέρους (in the accusa-
tive) πόλεως, and finally ἑκάστῃ instead of ἑτέρᾳ ; and that we
must therefore translate, “ Chorepiscopt are not permitted to
consecrate priests and deacons (for the country), still less (ἀλλὰ
μὴν μηδὲ) can they consecrate priests for the town without the
consent of the bishop of the place.” The Greek text, thus
modified according to some Mss., especially those in the Bod-
leian Library, certainly gives a good meaning. Still ἀλλὰ μὴν
μηδὲ does not mean, but still less: it means, but certainly not,
which makes a considerable difference.
Besides this, it can very seldom have happened that the
chorepiscopt ordained priests and deacons fora town; and if so,
they were already forbidden (emplicite) in the first part of the
canon.
Can. 14.
Τοὺς ἐν κλήρῳ πρεσβυτέρους ἢ διακόνους ὄντας καὶ ἀπεχομένους
κρεῶν ἔδοξεν ἐφάπτεσθαι, καὶ οὕτως, εἰ βούλοιντο, κρατεῖν ἑαυτῶν"
εἰ δὲ βούλοιντο (βδελύσσοιντο), ws μηδὲ τὰ μετὰ κρεῶν βαλλό-
μενα λάχανα ἐσθίειν, καὶ εἰ μὴ ὑπείκοιεν τῷ κανόνι, πεπαῦσθαι
αὐτοὺς τῆς τάξεως.
“Those priests and clerks who abstain from eating meat
ought (during the love-feasts) to eat it (taste it); but they may,
if they will, abstain from it (that is to say, not eat it). If they
disdain it (βδελύσσοιντο), so that they will not eat even
vegetables cooked with meat, and if they do not obey the
present canon, they are to be excluded from the ranks of the
clergy.”
The fifty-second apostolic canon had already promulgated
the same law with reference to the false Gnostic or Manichean
asceticism, which declared that matter was satanic, and especi-
ally flesh and wine. Zonaras has perceived and pointed out that
our canon treated of the agape, or love-feasts, of the primitive
Christians." He shows, besides, that ἐφάπτεσθαι means, to
touch the mcats, in the same sense as ἀπογεύεσθαι, to taste.
Matthzus Blastares’ agrees with Zonaras. Finally, Routh
has had the credit of contributing to the explanation of this
1 Tn Bevereg. J.c. i. 390.
2 Syntagm. lit. B, ο. 9, p. 55.
214 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
canon,! inasmuch as, relying on three Ms8., the Collectio of Jolin
of Antioch and the Latin versions, he has read εἰ δὲ βδελύσ-.
σοιντο instead of εἰ δὲ βούλοιντο, which has no meaning here.
If βούλοιντο is to be preserved, we must, with Beveridge, insert
the negation μὴ. But the reading βδελύσσοιντο has still in
its favour that the fifty-second apostolic canon, just quoted,
and which treats of the same question, has the expression
βδελυσσόμενος in the same sense as our canon. Let us add
that κρατεῖν ἑαυτῶν ought to be taken in the sense of ἐγκρατεῖν,
that is, to abstain.
Can. 15.
Περὶ τῶν διαφερόντων τῷ κυριακῷ, ὅσα ἐπισκόπου μὴ
ὄντος πρεσβύτεροι ἐπώλησαν, ἀναβαλεῖσθαι (ἀνακαλεῖσθαι) τὸ
κυριακὸν, ἐν δὲ τῇ κρίσει τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἶναι, εἴπερ προσήκει
ἀπολαβεῖν τὴν τιμὴν εἴτε καὶ μὴ, διὰ τὸ πολλάκις τὴν εἴσοδον
(πρόσοδον) τῶν πεπραμένων ἀποδεδωκέναι αὐτοῖς τούτοις πλεί-
ονα τὴν τιμήν.
“Tf the priests, during the vacancy of an episcopal sce,
have sold anything belonging to the Church, she (the
Church) has the right to reclaim it (ἀνακαλεῖσθαι); and it is
for the bishop to decide whether they (the buyers) are to
receive the price given for the purchase, seeing that often the
temporary use of the article sold to them has been worth more
than the price paid for it.”
If the purchaser of ecclesiastical properties has realized
more by the temporary revenue of such properties than the:
price of the purchase, the Synod thinks there is no occasion
to restore him this price, as he has already received a suffi-
cient indemnity from the revenue, and as, according to the
rules then in force, interest drawn from the purchase money
was not permitted.’ Besides, the purchaser had done wrong
in buying ecclesiastical property during the vacancy of a see
(sede vacante). Beveridge and Routh have shown that in the
text ἀνακαλεῖσθαι and πρόσοδον must be read.*
1 Reliquie sacra, iii. 440.
5 Κυριακὸν, that is, the Church, or the property of the Church. Cf. Suicer,
Thesaurus, s. h. v.
3 Herbst, Tiibinger Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 430.
* Routh, Peliqu'e sacra, iii. 441.
SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 1 21
οι
ΟΑΝ. 16.
Περὶ τῶν ἀλογευσαμένων ἢ καὶ ἀχογευομένων, ὅσοι πρὶν
εἰκοσαετεῖς γενέσθαι ἥμαρτον, πέντε καὶ δέκα ἔτεσιν ὑποπεσόν-
τες κοινωνίας τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς εἰς τὰς προσευχὰς, εἶτα ἐν τῇ
κοινωνίᾳ διατελέσαντες ἔτη πέντε, τότε καὶ τῆς προσφορᾶς
ἐφαπτέσθωσαν: ἐξεταζέσθω δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ ἐν τῇ ὑποπτώσει
βίος, καὶ οὕτως τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς φιλανθρωπίας" εἰ δέ τινες
κατακόρως ἐν τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι γεγόνασι, τὴν μακρὰν ἐχέτωσαν
ὑπόπτωσιν" ὅσοι δὲ ὑπερβάντες τὴν ἡλικίαν ταύτην Kal γυναῖκας
ἔχοντες περιπεπτώκασι τῷ ἁμαρτήματι, πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι ἔτη
ὑποπεσέτωσαν καὶ κοινωνίας τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς εἰς τὰς προσ-
ευχὰς, εἶτα ἐκτελέσαντες πέντε ἔτη ἐν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῶν εὐχῶν
τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς προσφορᾶς" εἰ δέ τινες καὶ γυναῖκας ἔχοντες
καὶ ὑπερβάντες τὸν πεντηκονταετῆ χρόνον ἥμαρτον, ἐπὶ τῇ ἐξόδῳ.
τοῦ βίου τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς κοινωνίας.
“Those who have been or are now guilty of lying with
beasts, supposing they are not twenty years old when they
commit this sin, shall be swbstrati for fifteen years; they
shall then be allowed to join in the prayers for five years
{and will consequently live in the fourth degree of peni-
tence); and after that time they may assist at the holy
sacrifice. An examination must also be made of their con-
duct while they were swbstrati, and also notice taken of the
lives they led. As for those who have sinned immoderately
in this way (2.c. who have for a long time committed this sin),
they must undergo a long substratio (no allowance will be
made in their case). Those who are more than twenty, and
have been married, and have nevertheless fallen into this sin,
shall be allowed to share in the prayers only after a substratio
of twenty-five years; and after five years’ sharing in the
prayers, they shall be allowed to assist at the holy sacrifice.
If married men more than fifty years old fall into this sin,
they shall receive the communion only at the end of their lives.”
On the expressions substratt, participation in prayers and im
the sacrifice, cf. the remarks above on canons 4 and 5,
; Can. 17.
Τοὺς ἀλογευσαμένους καὶ λεπροὺς ὄντας ἤτοι λεπρώσαντας, τού-
τους προσέταξεν ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος εἰς Tors χειμαζομένους εὔχεσθαι.
216: HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
It is not easy to give the real meaning of this canon. It
may perhaps mean: “Those who have committed acts of
bestiality, and, being lepers themselves, have now (ἤτορ
made.others so, must pray among the χειμαζομένοις. Others
translate it: “Those who have committed acts of bestiality,
and are or have been lepers (λεπρώσαντας, 1.6. having been
leprous), shall pray among the χειμαζομένοις.᾽ This last
translation seems to us inexact; for λεπρώσαντας does not
come from λεπράω, but from λεπρόω, which has a transitive
meaning, and signifies “to make leprous.”* But even if we
adopt the former translation without hesitation, it is still asked
if the leprosy of which the canon speaks is the malady known
by that name, and which lepers could communicate to others
especially by cohabitation ; or if it means spiritual leprosy,
sin, and especially the sin of bestiality, and its wider exten-
sion by bad example. Van Espen thinks that the canon
unites the two ideas, and that it speaks of the real leprosy’
caused precisely by this bestial depravity.27 By the word
“χειμαζόμενοι some understand those possessed. This is the
view of )Beveridge and Routh.” Others, particularly Suicer,
think that the Cotricil means by it penitents of the lowest
-ctegreé, the flentes, who had no right to enter the church, but
‘remained in the porch, in the open air, exposed to all incle-
mencies (χειμών), and who must ask those who entered the
church to intercede for them?
As, however, the possessed also remained in the porch, the
generic name of χειμαζόμενοι was given to all who were
there, ze. who could not enter the church. We may there-
fore accept Suicer’s explanation, with whom agree Van Espen,
Herbst, ete. Having settled this point, let us return to
the explanation of Nae It is clear that λεπρώσαντας
cannot possibly mean “those who have been lepers ;” for
there is no reason to be seen why those who were cured of
that malady should have to remain outside the church among
? The intransitive verb λεσράω would make its participle λεσρήσαντας.
2 Comment. l.c. p. 116.
3 Bevereg. t. ii. Append. p. 72, in the notes to can. 11 of the Council of
Nicea, printed also by Routh, Relig. sacr. iii. 490, cf. ibid. 444.
' *Suicer, Fhesaurus, 8.0. χειμαζέμενοι, "
SYNOD OF ANCYRA. τ ZiT
the jlentes. Secondly, it is clear that the words λεπροὺς
ὄντας, etc., are added to give force to the expression ἀλογευ-
σάμενοι. The preceding canon had decreed different penalties
for different kinds of ἀλογευσάμενοι. But that pronounced by
canon 17 being much severer than the preceding ones, the
ἀλογευσάμενοι of this canon must be greater sinners than
those of the former one. This greater guilt cannot consist
in the fact of a literal leprosy ; for this malady was not a
consequence of bestiality. But their sin was evidently greater
when they tempted others to commit it. It is therefore
λέπρα in the figurative sense that we are to understand ;
and our canon thus means: “Those who were spiritually
leprous through this sin, and tempting others to commit it
made them leprous.”
Can. 18.
Εἴ τινες ἐπίσκοποι κατασταθέντες καὶ μὴ δεχθέντες ὑπὸ τῆς
παροικίας ἐκείνης, εἰς ἣν ὠνομάσθησαν, ἑτέραις βούλοιντο παροι-
κίαις ἐπιέναι καὶ βιάζεσθαι τοὺς καθεστῶτας καὶ στάσεις κινεῖν
κατ᾽ αὐτῶν, τούτους ἀφορίζεσθαι: ἐὰν μέντοι βούλοιντο εἰς τὸ
πρεσβυτέριον καθέζεσθαι, ἔνθα ἦσαν πρότερον πρεσβύτεροι, μὴ
ἀποβάλλεσθαι αὐτοὺς τῆς τιμῆς" ἐὰν δὲ διαστασιάζωσι πρὸς
τοὺς καθεστῶτας ἐκεῖ ἐπισκόπους, ἀφαιρεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ τὴν
τιμὴν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου καὶ γίνεσθα αὐτοὺς ἐκκηρύκτους.
“Tf bishops, when elected, but not accepted by the parish .
for which they are nominated, introduce themselves into other
parishes, and stir up strife against the bishops who are there
instituted, they must be excommunicated. But if they (who
are elected and not accepted) wish to live as priests in those
places where they had hitherto served as priests, they need
not lose that dignity. But if they stir up discord against the
bishop of the place, they shall be deprived of their presbyterate,
and be shut out from the Church.”
As long as the people collectively had a share in the elec-
tion of bishops, it often happened in the primitive Church that
a bishop, regularly elected, was either expelled or rejected by
a rising of the people." Even although, at the time of his
election, the majority were in his favour, yet the minority often
put a stop to it; just as we saw in 1848 and 1849, howa
1 Van Espen, Comment. l.c. p 117, and Jus Eccles. pars i. tit. 18, ο. 1.
cis. EISTORY .OF THE COUNCILS.
very small minority tyrannized over whole towns and countries, —
and even drove owt persons who displeased them. The thirty-
fifth apostolical canon (thirty-sixth or thirty-seventh according
to other reckonings) and the eighteenth of Antioch (A.D. 341)
spoke also of such bishops driven from their dioceses.
When one of these bishops tried by violence or by treachery
to drive a colleague from his see, and to seize upon it, he was
to incur the penalty of ἀφορίζεσθαι. Van Espen understood
by that, the deprivation of his episcopal dignity ;+ but the
ἀφορισμὸς of the ancient Church signified more than that: it
signified excommunication, at least the minor excommunica-
tion, or exclusion from the communion of the Church.”
But the canon adds, if a bishop not. accepted by his Church
does not make these criminal attempts, but. will live modestly
among the priests of his former congregation, he can do so, and
“he shall not lose his dignity.” Is it here a question of the
title and dignity of a bishop, but without jurisdiction; or
does the word τιμὴ signify here only the rank of a priest ?
Dionysius the Less (Zxiguws) has taken it in the latter sense,
and translated it, “If they will, as presbyters, continue in the
order of the priesthood” (s¢ volwerint in presbyterti ordine ut
oresbytert residerc). The Greek commentators Zonaras® and
others have taken it in the same sense. This canon was added
-to the Corp. jur. can. (c. 6, dist. 92).
Can. 19.
Ὅσοι παρθενίαν ἐπαγγελλόμενοι ἀθετοῦσι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, τὸν
τῶν δυγάμων ὅρον ἐκπληρούτωσαν. Τὰς μέντοι συνερχομένας
παρθένους τισὶν ὡς ἀδελφὰς ἐκωλύσαμεν.
“ All who have taken ἃ vow of virginity, and have broken
that vow, are to be considered as bigamists (literally, must
submit to the decrees and prescriptions concerning bigamists).
We also forbid virgins to live as sisters with men.”
The first part of the canon regards all young persons—men
as well as women—who have taken a vow of virginity, and
who, having thus, so to speak, betrothed themselves to God,
are guilty of a guast bigamy in violating that promise. They
4 Commentarius, lc. p. 117.0 2 Cf, Suicer, Thesaurus, 8.v. &QopiZa, .
3 In Bever. Le. t. i. p. 895. Cf. Van Espen, Comm. lc. p. 117.
SYNOD OF-ANCYRA. ὦ 219
must therefore incur the punishment of bigamy (swccessiva),
which, according to 8. Basil the Great,’ consisted in one year’s
seclusion. This canon, which Gratian adopted (c. 24, causa 27,
quest. 1), speaks only of the violation of the vow by a lawful
marriage, whilst the thirteenth canon of Elvira speaks of those
who break their vow by incontinence. In the second part the
canon treats of the συνείσακτοι. On this point we refer to
our remarks on the third canon of Nica, and on the twenty-
seventh of Elvira.
Can. 20.
"Edy τινος γυνὴ μουχευθῇ ἢ μοιχεύσῃ τις, ἐν ἑπτὰ ἔτεσι δοκεῖ
(δεῖ) αὐτὸν τοῦ τελείου τυχεῖν κατὰ τοὺς βαθμοὺς τοὺς προ-
ἄγοντας. ;
“Tf any one has violated a married woman, or has broken
the marriage bond, he must for seven years undergo the diffe-.
rent degrees of penance, at the end of which he will be ad-
mitted into the communion of the Church.”
The simplest explanation of this canon is, “that the man
or woman who has violated the marriage bond shall undergo
a seven years’ penance;” but many reject this explanation,
because the text says αὐτὸν τύχειν, and consequently can refer
only to the husband. Fleury and Routh? think the canon
speaks, as does the seventieth of Elvira, of a woman who has
broken the marriage tie with the knowledge and consent of
her husband. The husband would therefore in this case be
punished for this permission, just as if he had himself com-
mitted adultery. Van Espen has given another explanation :
“That he who marries a woman already divorced for adultery
is as criminal as if he had himself committed adultery.”* But
this explanation appears to us more forced than that already
given; and we think that the Greek commentators Balsamon
and Zonaras were right in giving the explanation we have
offered first as the most natural. They think that the Synod
punished every adulterer, whether man or woman, by a seven
years’ penance. There is no reason for making a mistake
1 Basilius, ad Amphiloch., 3d vol. of the Bened. ed. of his works, p. 272. Cf
our remarks on the third and seventh canons of Neocesarea.
? Routh, Relig. sacr. iii. 447; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. ii. liv. x. $16.
5 Commentar. lc. p. 118,
220 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
because only the word αὐτὸν occurs in the passage in which
the penalty is fixed; for αὐτὸν here means the guilty party,
and applies equally to the woman and the man: besides, in
the preceding canon the masculine ὅσοι ἐπαγγελλόμενοι includes
young men and young women also. It is probable that the
Trullan Synod of 692, in forming its eighty-seventh canon,
had in view the twentieth of Ancyra. The sixty-ninth canon
of Elvira condemned to a lighter punishment—only five years
of penance—him who had been only once guilty of adultery.
CAN. 21.
Περὶ τῶν γυναικῶν τῶν ἐκπορνευουσῶν Kal ἀναιρουσῶν τὰ
“γεννώμενα καὶ σπουδαζουσῶν φθύόρια ποιεῖν ὁ μὲν πρότερος ὅρος
μέχρις ἐξόδου ἐκώλυσεν, καὶ τούτῳ συντίθενται: φιλανθρωπό-
τερον δὲ τι εὑρόντες ὡρίσαμεν δεκαετῆ χρόνον κατὰ τοὺς βαθμοὺς
τοὺς ὡρισμένους (adde πληρῶσαι).
“Women who prostitute themselves, and who kil: the chil-
dren thus begotten, or who try to destroy them when in their
wombs, are by ancient law excommunicated to the end of
their lives. "We, however, have softened their punishment,
and condemned them to the various appointed degrees of
penance for ten years.”
The sixty-third canon of Elvira had forbidden the com-
munion to be administered to such women even on their
death-beds; and this was the canon which the Synod of
Ancyra had probably here in view.’ ‘The expression καὶ
τούτῳ συντίθενται is vague: τινὲς may be understood, and it
micht be translated, “and some approve of this severity ;’ or
we might understand aé, and translate with Routh, “ The same
punishment will be inflicted on those who assist in causing
miscarriages :” the words then mean, “and those who assist
them.” We think, however, the first explanation is the easier
and the more natural. Gentianus Hervetus and Van Espen
have adopted it, translating thus: εὐ οἱ guidam assentientur.°
Can. 22.
, :
Περὶ ἑκουσίων φόνων, ὑποπιπτέτωσαν μὲν, τοῦ δὲ τελείου ἐν
τῷ τέλει τοῦ βίου καταξιούσθωσαν.
1 Van Espen, 1.6. p. 119. 27.c. p. 447 sq.
5 Cf Mansi, ii. 519; Van Espen, Com. p. 119.
SYNOD OF ANCYRA. ozs
“As to wilful murderers, they. must be substrati, and
allowed to receive the communion only at the end of their life.”
CAN. 23.
᾿Επὶ ἀκουσίων φόνων, ὁ μὲν πρότερος ὅρος ἐν ἑπταετίᾳ
κελεύει τοῦ τελείου μετασχεῖν κατὰ τοὺς ὡρισμένους βαθμούς:
0 δὲ ὃ δεύτερος τὸν πενταετῆ χρόνον πληρῶσαι.
“As to unpremeditated murder, the earlier ordinance
allowed communion (to the homicide) at the end of a seven
years’ penance ; the second required only five years.”
Of the first and second ordinances referred to in this canon
nothing further is known ;’ as to the terms ὅρος, τέλειον, and
βαθμοὶ, see the canons of Ancyra already explained.
CAN. 24.
Οἱ καταμαντευόμενοι καὶ ταῖς συνηθείαις τῶν χρόνων (ἐθνῶν)
ἐξακολουθοῦντες ἢ εἰσάγοντές τινας εἰς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν οἴκους ἐπὶὲ
ἀνευρέσει φαρμακειῶν ἢ καὶ καθάρσει, ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα πιπ-
τέτωσαν τῆς πενταετίας κατὰ τοὺς βαθμοὺς ὡρισμένους, τρία
ἔτη ὑποπτώσεως καὶ δύο ἔτη εὐχῆς χωρὶς προσφορᾶς.
“ Those who foretell the future, and follow pagan customs,
or admit into their houses people (magicians) in order to
discover magical -remedies, or to perform expiations, must be
sentenced to a five years’ penance, to three years of substratio,
and to two years of attendance at prayers without the sacri-
fice (non-communicating attendance).”
We must refer to the explanations we have given under
canon 4 on the different degrees of penance. It has long
been known (as witnesses we have the old Greek commenta-
tors Balsamon and Zonaras,? and the old Latin interpreters
Dionysius the Less and Isidore, confirmed by Routh®) that
the correct reading is ἐθνῶν instead of χρονῶν. The canon
threatens equally diviners and those who consult them and
summon them to their houses to prepare magical remedies and
perform expiations.
CAN. 25.
Μνηστευσάμενός τις κόρην προσεφθάρη τῇ ἀδελφῇ αὐτῆς, ὡς
καὶ ἐπιφορέσαι αὐτήν᾽ ἔγημε δὲ τὴν μνηστὴν μετὰ Tatra, ἡ δὲ
1 Van Espen, ἢ δ. p. 190, 3 In Bev. i. 899.
3 Routh, Relig. sacr. iii. 449.
922 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
φθαρεῖσα dmiytato’ οἱ συνειδότες ἐκελεύσθησαν ἐν δεκαετίᾳ
δεχθῆναι εἰς τοὺς συνεστῶτας κατὰ τοὺς ὡρισμένους βαθμούς.
“A certain person who had betrothed himself to a girl, had
connection with her sister, so that she became pregnant: he
then married his betrothed, and his sister-in-law hanged her-
self. It was determined that all his accomplices should be ad-
mitted among the sistentes (i.e. to the fourth degree of penance),
after passing through the appointed degrees for ten years.”
The Council here decides, as we see, a particular case
which was submitted to it; and it condemned not only the
particular offender, but all the accomplices who had assisted
him to commit the crime, who had advised him to leave her
he had seduced, and to marry her sister, or the like. The
punishment inflicted was very severe, for it was only at the
end of ten years (passed in the three first degrees of penance)
that the offenders were admitted to the fourth degree. It is
not stated how long they were to remain in that degree
before admission to the communion. The Greek verb προσ-
φθείρομαι generally means, “to do anything to one’s hurt:”
joined to γυναικὶ or some other similar word, it has the mean-
ing we have given it. We have rendered ἀπήγξατο by
“hanged herself ; we ought, however, to note that ἀπάγχω
signifies every kind of suicide.
Sec. 17. Synod of Neoceesarca (314-325),
According to the title which the ancient Greek Mss. give
to the canons of the Synod of Neocesarea in Cappadocia,
this Synod was held a little later than that of Ancyra, but
before that of Nicza. The names of the bishops who assisted
at it seem to furnish a second chronological support to this
view. They are for the most part the same as those who are
named at the Council of Ancyra, Vitalis of Antioch at their
head (the Libellus Synodicus reckons twenty-four of them) ; but
neither the Greek mss. nor Dionysius the Less have these
names. Tillemont? and other writers have for this reason
1 Cf. on this point the Essay of the Ballerini in their ed. of the works of 5.
Leo, t. iii. p. xxii. c. 4.
2 Mémoires, etc. vi. 86, ed. Brux. 1782, under the art. S. Vitale. Cf. Van
Espen, Com. lc. p. 121 sqq.
© SYNOD OF NEOCASAREA. 993
raised doubts as to the historical value of these lists, and the
brothers Ballerini have not hesitated to disallow their authen-
ticity. It remains, however, an incontestable fact, that the
Synod of Neoczesarea took place at about the same time as
that of Ancyra, after the death of Maximin the persecutor of
the Christians (313), and before the Synod of Nicza (325).
Ordinarily the same date is assigned to it as to that of
Ancyra, 314 or 315; but to me it seems more probable that
it took place several years later, because there is no longer
any question about the lapsed. The Synod of Ancyra had
devoted no fewer than ten canons (1-9 and 12) to this
subject, as a persecution had then just ceased ; the Synod of
Neocesarea did not touch on these matters, probably because
at the time when it assembled the lapsed had already received
their sentence, and there were no more measures necessary to
be taken on that subject. The Libellus Synodicus, it is true,
states that the Synod of (Neo) Ceesarea occupied itself with
those who had sacrificed to the gods or abjured their religion,
or had eaten of sacrifices offered to idols, and during the
persecution ;* but the canons of the Council say not a word
of them. It is probable that the late and very inaccurate
Libellus Synodicus® confounded, on this point, the Synod of
Neocesarea with that of Ancyra. It has, without any
grounds, been alleged that the canons of Neocesarea which
spoke of the dapst have been destroyed.
Can. 1.
Πρεσβύτερος ἐὰν γήμῃ, τῆς τάξεως αὐτὸν μετατίθεσθαι, ἐὰν
δὲ πορνεύσῃ ἢ μοιχεύσῃ, ἐξωθεῖσθαι αὐτὸν τέλεον καὶ ἄγεσθαι
αὐτὸν εἰς μετάνοιαν.
‘If a priest marry, he shall be removed from the ranks of
the clergy; if he commit fornication or adultery, he shall be
excommunicated, and shall submit to penance.”
The meaning is as follows: “If a priest marry after ordi-
nation, he shall be deposed from his priestly order, and
reduced to the communio laicalis; if he is guilty of fornica-
tion or adultery, he must be excommunicated, and must pass
1In Hard. v. 1499 ; Mansi, ii. 551. 2 See above, § 1.
3 Rémi Ceillier, lc. p. 722 sq.; Migne, Dict. des Conciles, ii. 54.
224 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, me
through all the degrees of penance in order to regain com-
‘munion: with the Church.” We have seen above, in canon
10 of Ancyra, that in one case deacons were allowed to marry
after ordination,—namely, when they had announced their
intention of doing so at the time of their election. In the
case of priests, neither the Council of .Ancyra nor that of
Neocesarea made any exception. This first canon has been
inserted in the Corp. jur. can." :
CAN, 2. :
Γυνὴ ἐὰν γήμηται δύο ἀδελφοῖς, ἐξωθείσθω μέχρι θανάτου,
πλὴν ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, διὰ τὴν φιλανθρωπίαν, εἰποῦσα ὡς ὑγιά-
vaca λύσει τὸν γώμον, ἕξει τὴν μετάνοιαν" ἐὰν δὲ τελευτήσῃ ἡ
γυνὴ ἐν τοιούτῳ γάμῳ οὖσα ἤτοι ὁ ἀνὴρ, δυσχερὴς τῷ μείναντι
ἡ μετάνοια.
“Tf ἃ woman has married two brothers, she shall be ex-
communicated till her death; if she is in danger of death,
and promises in case of recovery to break off this illegitimate
union, she may, as an act of mercy, be admitted to. penance.
If the woman or husband die in this union, the penance for
the survivor will be very strict.”
This is a question of marriage of the first degree of affinity,
which is still forbidden by the present law. The canon
punishes such marriages with absolute excommunication ; so
that he who had entered into such should not obtain com-
munion even in articulo mortis, unless he promised in case of
recovery to break this union. ‘This promise being given, he
can be admitted to penance (€e. τὴν μετάνοιαν). Zonaras
thus correctly explains these words: “In this case he shall
receive the holy communion ὧν articulo mortis, provided he
promises that, if he recovers, he will submit to penance.”
Canon 6 of Ancyra was explained in the same way.
7 Cay, 3.
Περὶ τῶν πλείστοις γάμοις περιπιπτόντων ὁ μὲν χρόνος
σαφὴς ὁ ὡρισμένος, ἡ δὲ ἀναστροφὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις αὐτῶν συν-
τέμνει τὸν χρόνον.
“As for those who have been often married, the duration
1C. 9, dist. 28.
SYNOD OF NEOCASSAREA, 225
of their penance is well known; but their good conduct and
faith may shorten that period.”
As the Greek commentators have remarked? this canon
speaks of those who have been married more than twice. It
is not known what were the ancient ordinances of penitence
which the Synod here refers to. In later times, bigamists
were condemned to one year’s penance, and trigamists from
two to five years. S. Basil places the trigamists for three
years among the audientes, then for some time among the
consistentes.” Gratian has inserted this third canon of Neo-
ceesarea in the c. ὃ, causa 31, quest. 1, in connection with
canon 7 of the same Synod.
Can. 4.
᾿Εὰν πρόθηται τις ἐπιθυμῆσαι (ἐπιθυμήσας) γυναικὸς ovy-
καθευδῆσαι per αὐτῆς (αὐτῆ), μὴ ἔλθη δὲ εἰς ἔργον αὐτοῦ ἡ
ἐνθύμησις, φαίνεται ὅτι ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος ἐῤῥύσθη.
“Tf aman who burns with love for a woman proposes to
live with her, but does not perform his intention, 1t is to be
believed that he was restrained by grace.”
Instead of ἐπιθυμῆσαι we must read, with Beveridge and
Routh, who rely upon several Mss., ἐπιθυμήσας. They also
replace μετ᾽ αὐτῆς by αὐτῇς The meaning of this canon is,
that “he who has sinned only in thought must not undergo a
public penance.” ἢ
Can. 5.
, ἽΝ ᾽ , 9 Ν Ν 9 A a
Karnyovpevos, ἐὰν εἰσερχόμενος εἰς (τὸ) κυριακὸν ἐν TH τῶν
κατηχουμένων τάξει στήκῃ, οὗτος δὲ (φανῇ) ἁμαρτάνων, ἐὰν μὲν
γόνυ κλίνων, ἀκροάσθω μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνων" ᾿Εὰν δὲ καὶ ἀκροώ-
μενος ἔτι ἁμαρτάνῃ, ἐξωθείσθω.
“Tf a catechumen, after being introduced into the Church,
and admitted into the ranks of the catechumens, acts as a
sinner, he must, if he is genuflectens (1.6. to say, in the second
degree of penance), become audiens (the lowest degree), until
1 In Bevereg. 1.6. i. 404.
Basil. ad Amphil. can. 4, Opp. ed. Bened. iii. 271 sq. Cf. below, canon 7
of this Synod, and the nineteenth of Ancyra.
3 Bev. Synod. i. 404; Routh, Rel. Sac. iii. 465.
4Cf. Van Esxen Comment Uc. Ὁ. 124; and Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. ii. liv,
x. sec, 17
P
226 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
he sins no more. If, after being audicns, lie continues to sin,
he shall be entirely excluded from the Church.”
Routh} on good critical grounds, recommends the introduc-
tion into the text of τὸ and φανῇ. The form στήκῃ and the
verb στήκω, to stand up, do not occur in classical Greek, but
are often found in the New Testament, eg. in 8. Mark xi. 25,
and are formed from the regular perfect ἕστηκα Hardouin
thinks the canon has in view the carnal sins of catechumens ;
and ἁμάρτημα has elsewhere this meaning, eg. in canons 2, 9,
and 14 of Niceea.’
Can. 6.
Περὶ κυοφορούσης, ὅτι δεῖ φωτίξεσθαι ὁπότε βούλεται" οὐδὲν
γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ κοινωνεῖ ἡ τίκτουσα τῷ τικτομένῳ, διὰ τὸ ἑκάστου
ἰδίαν τὴν προαίρεσιν τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ δείκνυσθαι.
«A woman with child may be illuminated (ze. baptized)
whenever she demands it; for she who bears has nothing
on this account in common with him who is borne, since each
party must profess his own willingness (to be baptized) by his
confession of faith.”
Some thought that when a woman with child is baptized,
the grace of the sacrament is given to the fruit of her womb,
and so to baptize this child again after its birth is in a
manner to administer a second baptism; and they concluded
that they ought not to baptize a pregnant woman, but that
they must wait till her delivery.
ae Can. 7.
Πρεσβύτερον εἰς γάμους δυιγαμούντων (δυγαμοῦντος) μὴ ἑστι-
ἄσθαι, ἐπεὶ μετάνοιαν αἰτοῦντος τοῦ δυιγάμου, τίς ἔσται ὁ πρεσ-
βύτερος, ὁ διὰ τῆς ἑστιάσεως συγκατατιθέμενος τοῖς γάμοις ;
“No priest shall eat at the marriage feast of those who
are married for the second time; for if such a bigamist should
(afterwards) ask leave to do penance, how stands the priest
who, by his presence at the feast, had given his approval to
the marriage ?”
We have already seen by canon 3, that in the East that
successive bigamy (bigamia successiva) which is here in ques-
1 Relig. sacr. iii. 466. 2 Wahl. Clavis N. T. 8.v. στήκω,
' δ᾽ Hard. i. 283, nm
" SYNOD OF NEOCAESSAREA. wd
tion, as Beveridge thinks? and not bigamy properly so called,
was punished in the East by a year’s penance. The meaning
of the canon is as follows: “If the bigamist, after contracting
his second marriage, comes to the priest to be told the punish-
ment he has to undergo, how stands the priest himself, who
for the sake of the feast has become his accomplice in the
offence ?”
| Cay. 8. |
Γυνή twos μοιχευθεῖσα λαϊκοῦ ὄντος, ἐὰν ἐλεγχθῇ φανερῶς,
ὁ τοιοῦτος εἰς ὑπηρεσίαν ἐλθεῖν οὐ δύναται: ἐὰν δὲ καὶ μετὰ τὴν
χειροτονίαν μουιχευθῇ, ὀφείλει ἀπολῦσαι αὐτὴν" ἐὰν δὲ συζῇ, οὐ
δύναται ἔχεσθαι τῆς ἐγχειρισθείσης αὐτῷ ὑπηρεσίας.
“Tf the wife of a layman has been unfaithful to her husband,
and she is convicted of the sin, her (innocent) husband cannot
be admitted to the service of the Church; but if she has vio-
lated the law of marriage after her husband’s ordination, he
must leave her. If, in spite of this, he continues to live with
her, he must resign the sacred functions which have been
entrusted to him.”
The Corp. jur. can. has adopted this canon? The reason
for this ordinance evidently consists in this, that through the
close. connection between a man and his wife, a husband is
dishonoured by an adulterous wife, and a dishonoured man
cannot become an ecclesiastic. The Pastor of Hermas? had
already shown that a husband must leave his adulterous wife!
CAN. 9.
4 δὰ \ ' , ἥ A ἥν
Πρεσβύτερος, ἐὰν προημαρτηκὼς σώματι προαχθῇ καὶ ὅμολο-
γήσῃ ὅτι ἥμαρτε πρὸ τῆς χειροτονίας, μὴ προσφερέτω, μένων ἐν
τοῖς λοιποῖς διὰ τὴν ἄλλην σπουδήν" τὰ γὰρ λοιπὰ ἁμαρτήματα
v ς \ \ \ / 3 / ὟΝ \ > \ \
εφασαν οἱ πολλοὶ Kal τὴν χειροθεσίαν ἀφιέναι" ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὸς μὴ
ς fol > an \ an \ a £29 > > 2 U
ομολογῇ, ἐλεγχθῆναι δὲ φανερῶς μὴ δυνηθῇ, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἐκείνῳ
ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν...
“A priest who has committed a carnal sin before being
ordained, and who of his own accord confesses that he has
1 Cf. Routh, Uc. p. 469, and Van Espen, lc. p. 124. 2C. 11, dist. 34.
* Lib. ii. mand. 4. See Hefele’s A post. Fathers, 3d ed. p. 353.
* Cf. also the sixty-fifth canon of Elvira, which treats of the adulterous wife
of an ecclesiastic.
228 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
sinned before ordination, must not offer the holy sacrifice ;
but he may continue his other functions if he is zealous, for
many think that other sins (except that of incontinence) were
blotted out by his ordination as priest. But if he does not
confess it, and he cannot clearly be convicted, it shall be in
his own power to act (as he will, ze. to offer the sacrifice, or to
refrain from offering).”
Cf. can. 22 of the Council in Trullo, and can. 1, causa 15,
queest.8, in the Corp. jur. can.
Can. 10.
Ὁμοίως καὶ διάκονος, ἐὰν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἁμαρτήματι περιπέσῃ,
τὴν τοῦ ὑπηρέτου τάξιν ἐχέτω.
“Tn the same way, the deacon who has committed the same
sin must only have the office of an inferior minister.”
The preposition ἐν before τῷ αὐτῷ is struck out by Routh,
on the authority of several Mss. By ministri (ὑπήρεται) are
meant the inferior officers of the Church—the so-called minor
orders, often including the sub-deacons.? This canon, com-
pletely distorted by false translations (of the Prisca and Isi-
dore), was made into one canon with the preceding in the Corp.
jur. can.
Can. 11.
Πρεσβύτερος πρὸ τῶν τριάκοντα ἐτῶν μὴ χειροτονείσθω, ἐὰν
καὶ πάνυ ἢ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἄξιος, ἀλλὰ ἀποτηρείσθω" ὁ γὰρ Κύριος
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐφωτίσθη καὶ ἤρξατο
διδάσκειν.
“No one is to be ordained priest before he is thirty years
old. Even although he be in every respect worthy, he must
wait ; for our Lord Jesus Christ, when thirty years old, was
baptized, and began (at that age) to teach.”
We know that, in the primitive Church, φωτίζεσθαι, to be
illuminated, means to be baptized. We find this canon in the
Corp. jur. cans
} Can. 12.
᾿Εὰν νοσῶν τις φωτισθῇ, εἰς πρεσβύτερον ἄγεσθαι οὐ δύναται,
1 Relig. sacr. iii. 472.
2 Cf. can. 2 of Arles, above, p. 185; and Suicer, Vhes. s.v. ὑπηρέτη;.
50, 1, causa 15, q. 8. 40, 4, dist. 78.
SYNOD OF NEOCASAREA. 229
-- οὐκ ἐκ προαιρέσεως yap ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἀνάγκης,---
εἰ μὴ τάχα διὰ τὴν μετὰ ταῦτα αὐτοῦ σπουδὴν καὶ πίστιν καὶ
διὰ σπάνιν ἀνθρώπων.
“Tf a man is baptized when he is ill, he cannot be ordained
priest ; for it was not spontaneously, but of necessity (through
fear of death), that he made profession of the faith—unless,
perhaps, he has displayed great zeal and faith, or if the supply
of candidates fails.”
All commentators, except Aubespine,’ say that this canon,
which was received into the Corp. jur. can.” speaks of those
who, by their own fault, have deferred the reception of bap-
tism till their deathbed. Aubespine thinks that it refers to
catechumens who have not received baptism earlier through no
fault of their own, but who, finding themselves smitten by a
severe sickness, are baptized before the usual time, 1.6. before:
receiving all the necessary instruction. It was, he added, on
account of this want of instruction that they were forbidden.
to enter the priesthood if they regained their health. But the
forty-seventh canon of Laodicea tells us that in the primitive
Church it was the duty of such catechumens to receive instruc-
tion even after baptism, and this alone overthrows Aubespine’s.
conjecture.
Can. 13.
Ἐπιχώριοι πρεσβύτεροι ἐν τῷ κυριακῷ τῆς πόλεως προσφέ-.
pewv οὐ δύνανται παρόντος ἐπισκόπου ἢ πρεσβυτέρων πόλεως, οὔτε
μὴν ἄρτον διδόναι ἐν εὐχῇ οὐδὲ ποτήριον" ἐὰν δὲ ἀπῶσι καὶ
εἰς εὐχὴν κληθῇ μόνος, δίδωσιν.
“ Country priests must not offer the holy sacrifice in the town
church (the cathedial) when the bishop or the town priests
are present: nor must they either distribute, with prayer,
the bread and the chalice. But if the bishop and his priests
are absent, and if the country priest be invited to celebrate,
he may administer holy communion.”
Instead of κληθῇ μόνος, the old Latin translators of the canons,
Dionysius the Less and Isidore, read κληθῶσι, μόνοι; that is to
1 In Routh, Relig. sacr. iii. 473; and Van Espen, Comm. l.c. p. 126.
*C..1, dist. δε.
3 Cf. Van Espen, Comm. lc. Ὁ. 126; Herbst, Tiibing. Quartalschrift, 1821,
S. 445 f.; Routh, lc. p. 473 sq.
230. - HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS:
say, “If they are asked, then only can they administer the
Lord’s Supper ;” and Routh recommends this reading. This
canon is contained in the Corp. jur. can."
Can. 14.
Oi δὲ χωρεπίσκοποι εἰσὶ μὲν εἰς τύπον τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα"
ὡς δὲ συλλειτουργοὶ διὰ τὴν σπουδὴν (τὴν) εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς
προσφέρουσι τιμώμενοι.
“The chorepiscopt represent the seventy disciples of Christ ;
and, as fellow-workers, on account of their zeal for the poor,
they have the honour of offering the sacrifice.”
A function is here assigned to the chorepiscopi which is
denied to country priests, namely, the offering of the holy
sacrifice in the cathedral, in the presence of the bishop and the
town priests. On the chorepiscopi, compare c. 13 of Ancyra,
and our remarks below on canon 57 of Laodicea. Many Mss.
and editions have canons 13 and 14 in one.
Can. 15.
Avdxovo ἑπτὰ ὀφείλουσιν εἶναι κατὰ τὸν κανόνα, Kav πάνυ
μεγάλη εἴη ἡ πόλις: πεισθήσῃ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς βίβλου τῶν Πράξεων.
“In even the largest towns there must be, according to the
rule, no more than seven deacons. This may be proved from
the Acts of the Apostles.”
This canon was given in the Corp. jur. can.”
10, 12, dist. 95. 20. 12, dist. 98,
BOOK 11.
THE FIRST GCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF ΝΙΟΖΑ.
AD. S28.
CHAPTER 1.
PRELIMINARY."
Sec. 18. Zhe Doctrine of the Logos prior to Arianism.
be the beginning, two points concerning the Logos and
: His relation to the Father have stood as divinely re-
vealed in the consciousness of the Church. On the one hand,
His real divinity and equality with the Father ; on the other,
His personal distinction from the Father. But before the
Council of Nicza this sure doctrine of the faith had not been
set forth in a sufficiently definite or positive manner. Whilst
some of the ancient Fathers, in expounding the faith of the
Church, had, without thoroughly mastering the formula of
Nicva, perfectly understood and taught its meaning, others
selected less happy expressions, and sometimes erroneous ones
—such as would, in their consequences, even lead to heresy.
These same Fathers have, in different portions of their writings,
expressed themselves sometimes with theological accuracy,
sometimes with less accuracy. Thus, for example, S. Irenzeus,
Clementof Alexandria, S.Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neocesarea,’
1 Compare Hefele’s treatise on the origin and character of Arianism, in the
Titbing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1851, Heft 2.
2 On the indecision in the expressions of Gregory, cf. H. Ritter, Geschichte ὦ,
chiistl. Philosophie, Bd. ii. S. 14.
231
232 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS
and Methcdius,’ did not always choose their expressions care-
fully, but in substance they incontestably maintained the true
doctrine. It is the same with Justin, Athenagoras, and Theo-
philus, who expressed themselves irreproachably on the chief
dogmatic points, but differ in some of their inferences from
the rule of the Church. The Apologists, above all others, to
make themselves more acceptable and intelligible to the heathen
who were accustomed to the Platonic philosophy, made a less
clear and exact declaration of the doctrine of the Logos. In
this endeavour they have too often brought the Christian idea
of the Logos near to that of Plato and Philo, and so have too
often degraded the Son in His dignity and power, attributed a
beginning to His existence, and consequently have not recog-
nised His equality with the Father (thus, among the orthodox
Fathers, Athenagoras and Theophilus ; among the more hetero-
dox, Tatian, Tertullian, and especially Origen), and have empha-
sized too much the personal distinction between the Father
and the Son.
On the other hand, they also tried to establish the second
point of the traditional doctrine, the true divinity of the Son, and
His equality with the Father, by declaring that the Logos was
not a creature, and by saying that He came from the substance
of the Father, and not from nothing, as the creatures do.” They
sometimes deny that the Logos was subsequent to the Father
in His existence, which they affirm in other places. Attaching
themselves to the distinction established by Philo between the
λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικὸς, several of the ancient Fathers,
philosophizing on the Son of God in the sense of the Logos
προφορικὸς (that is, as He is personally distinct from the
Father), speak of this Logos as of a being subordinate, and
having an existence subsequent in time to that of the Father.
In other places, on the contrary, they seem to suppress the
distinction, purely nominal, between ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικὸς,
and include the Logos completely in the divine substance.®
These last passages correct all that is exagverated in the
1 Cf. Ritter, 1.6. S. 4 ff.
? Petavius, de theolog. dogmat. de Trinitat. pref. c. 1, § 12, 18, €. 3, § 3 sqq.,
and lib. i. 3.1; 1.5. 7; 1. 8.2; Kuhnin the 7'iling. Quart. 1850, S. 256 ff
3 Kuhn, le S. 274
THE DOCTRINE ΟΝ THE LOGOS PRIOR TO ARIANISM. 233
others, and positively support the ancient Fathers on the solid
basis of the Church.*
In certain cases, the two principal points of the doctrine of
the Logos—the unity cf the Son with the Father, and the dis-
tinction between the Father and the Son—have been regarded
as contradictory propositions ; and instead of preserving eacly
1 The stability and permanence of the doctrine of the Church on the one side,
and the uncertainty of several of the Fathers in expressing the doctrine of the
Logos on the other, were pointed out long ago by S. Augustine (on Ps. liv. (lv.),.
n. 22) and S. Jerome (adv. libr. Rufin. ii. 440, ed. Migne). 8S. Augustine says:
Numquid perfecte de Trinitate disputatum est, antequam oblutrarent Ariani ?
8. Jerome writes: Certe antequam in Alexandria quasi demonium meridianum
Arius nasceretur, innocenter quedam et minus caute locuti sunt. This nncer-
tainty of the Fathers has been pointed out with still greater force by our great.
historian of dogma, Petavius. The Anglican Bull, however, regarded the free
and scientific histor.cal treatment of the subject by the Jesuit as an injury done
to high church orthodoxy, and endeavoured, with great expenditure of learning,
to demonstrate the indemonstrable,—namely, that all the ante-Nicene Fathers.
held the Nicene faith exactly and precisely. In more recent times, Dr. Baur of
Tiibingen (Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. 110) has objected to Petavius, to the
extent of accusing him of going beyond the Catholic point of view,—an accusa-
tion which has been refuted in the treatise of Kuhn, already quoted, ‘‘ the
Vindication of Dionysius Petavius, and the Catholic Conception of the His-
tory of Dogma.”
‘In direct opposition to Bull, writers with a Unitarian bias, like Sandius and
others, endeavour to show that all or most of the ante-Nicene Fathers were also
anti-Nicene; in other words, that before the Nicene Synod there prevailed an
entirely different doctrine of the Trinity, whether related on the one hand to
Sabellianism, or on the other to Arianism.
Petavius, as we see, forms the mean between those two extremes, and with
him agree those later Catholic theologians who have examined the ancient doctrine
of the Logos, particularly Prudentius Maran (Divinitas Domini nostri J. Christi.
manifesta in Scripturis et Traditione, Paris 1746, fol. ; and la Divinité de notre
Seigneur, etc., Paris 1751) and Mohler (Athanasius, i. 116, 56). These writers,
while they admit the uncertainty and indefiniteness, or even the inaccuracy, of
many of the ancient Fathers with reference to the doctrine of the Logos, at the
same time maintain the firm hold which the Church always had on the substance
of the faith on those two fundamental parts of.the doctrine of the Logos (the
proper Godhead of the Son, and the personal distinction between Him and the
Father). In doing so, they at the same time separate themselves entirely from
that idea of the history of dogma in general, and of the development of the dogma
of the Logos in particular, which has been put forth by Hegel and Baur. For
while this new Protestant school asserts that dogma has always been produced
by the antagonism of opposite views, and thereby destroys the whole of che solid.
substance of dogma, the Catholic historian distinguishes a permanent element
and a changeable: the former being the substance of the faith itself; the latter
the perception, comprehension, and representation of this firm substance of
faith,
7 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
in its theological entirety and relation to the other, they have
thought to annihilate the one by the other. Out of this arose
Sabellianism. This heresy, while maintaining the proper God-
head of the Son, in order the better to establish His equality
with the Father, destroyed the personal distinction between
the Father and the Son. But as one extreme leads to another,
Sabellianism necessarily produced Subordinationism as its
natural reaction; 1.6. the theory which, in endeavouring to pre-'
serve the personal distinction between the Father and the Son,
like Emanationism, subordinates in glory and in dignity Him
who is begotten—that is to say, the Son—to Him who is
unbegotten, and thus approximates Him more or less to the
creatures. The celebrated. Dionysius the Great,’ Bishop of
Alexandria, is the most remarkable in this contest. About the
year 260, in his dogmatic letter to Ammonius and Euphranor,?
as is well known, he expressed himself very indefinitely ; and
in order to mark more forcibly the distinction between the
Father and the Son, he spoke of the latter as a ποίημα τοῦ
Θεοῦ. He added, “that the Son in substance is alien from
the Father (ξένον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν), as the vine plant and the vine-
dresser are distinct one from the other in substance;” and
“as He is a ποίημα, He could not have been before He was
made (οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν γένηται). Thus in words, though not by
intention, Dionysius had placed the Son on a par with the
creatures. His excuse is found in the uncertain and vacillating
language of his time, even apart from his well-intended opposi-
tion to Sabellianism, since other orthodox writers also describe
the derivation of the Son from the Father promiscuously by
such expressions as ποιεῖν, γεννᾶν, γένεσθαι, condere, and generare.
Pope Dionysius and his Synod were more clearsighted than
these theologians. When several African bishops complained
to him of the errors of Dionysius of Alexandria, the Pope held
a Synod about the year 260; and after having deliberated
with the members of the Synod on the dogma in question, he
addressed to his colleague in Alexandria, and probably at the
same time to other bishops of Egypt and Libya, a letter very
1 On the doctrine of Dionysius of Alex., cf. Natal. Alex. Hist. Hecl. t. iv.
diss. xvii. p. 131 sqq., and Ritter, lc. S. 14 ff
2 In Athanas. de sententia Dionysii, c. 4.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS PRIOR TO ARIANISM. 235
remarkable. in the history of the true faith, the greater part
of which has been preserved for us by S. Athanasius.’ In it
he protests against three errors: first, against the trithevstic,
“which, diametrically opposed to Sabellius, divides the divine
monarchy into three separate powers or hypostases, and plainly
teaches that there are three Gods.” Baur supposed that the
accusers of Dionysius of Alexandria had supported the doc-
trine of tritheism.2 Dorner, on the other hand, believes that
tritheism was the result of a mixture of Sabellianism and
Marcionitism ;* but he has not proved that this amaleamation
existed during that period. Secondly, the Pope condemned,
briefly and casually, Sabellianism ; and, thirdly and lastly, he
spoke at some length against those who called the Son a crea-
ture, when Holy Scripture declares that He was begotten.
“Had He been created,” said he, “there would have been a
period when He did not exist. Now the Son has always
existed (ἀεὶ ἣν). The Pope then explains critically those pas-
sages in the Bible* which seemingly speak of a creation of the
Son; and against these he brings forward those’ which speak
of His generation and of His eternity. He closes with these
words: “The admirable and holy unity (of God) cannot in
consequence be divided into three Godheads; and the dignity
and incomparable greatness of the Lord ought not to be lowered
by the expression creature being appled to Him. It is neces-
sary to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus
Christ His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and that the Logos is
united to the God of the universe.” The Bishop of Rome
here clearly professes the doctrine of Nicea; and that Dionysius
the Great of Alexandria also professed it, is proved by two
letters which he then sent to Rome to justify himself, and
which 8. Athanasius quoted in order to prove that the Arians
had done wrong in numbering Dionysius as one of their
party. Dionysius says, in his letters,° that his accusers had
1 De decretis Synodi Nic. c. 26. Cf. de sent. Dionys. c. 18.
2 Baur, Christ. Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit, Bd. i. S. 313.
3 Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person Christi, 2d ed. ΤῊ]. i. S. 750 [Clark’s translation,
A. ii. 176 ff. 1.
* Prov. viii. 22; Dent. xexii. 6:
5 Col. i. 15; Ps. cix. (ex.) 8; Prov. viii. 25.
§ In Athanas. de decretis Nicene Synodi, c. 25, and de sententia Dionys. c. 18.
236 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. τ
falsely charged him with denying the equality of the substance
of the Father and the Son; and if he had said that nowhere
in the Bible the word ὁμοούσιος could be found, the argument
of which he made use, and which his adversaries had passed
over in silence, was in complete agreement with that expres-
sion. He had, indeed, compared the relation between God the
Father and God the Son with those between parents and
children, as children are of the same substance as their
parents. He had also employed other analogous arguments,
eg. the example of the plant and its root or its seed, between
which there was an evident identity of substance. To the
same effect was his comparison of the river and its source.
He says, in another part of his letter of justification: “There
has never been a moment when God was not the Father; and
the Son is eternal; but He has His being, not of Himself,
but of the Father.” Also in a third place? he declares “he
does not believe the Logos is a creature, and that he has not
called God Creator (ποιητής), but Father, to express the rela-
tion that He has to the Son. If, however, in the course of
his speech (and without intending it) he has once called the
Father ποιητὴς to express His relation to the Son, he may be
excused, seeing that the learned Greeks call themselves also
ποιηταὶ, as being fathers of their works, and that the Bible
itself does not always employ the word in the sense of creator,
but sometimes also in the sense of originator: for instance,
when it says we are the ποιηταὶ of the movements of our
hearts.”
After Dionysius the Great, the most illustrious doctors of
the Church of Alexandria, Theognostus, Pierius, and Bishop
Peter, professed also the orthodox doctrine of the Logos.
The first of these, who was chief of the catechetical school cf
this town from 270 to about 280, states explicitly, in a frag-
ment preserved by S. Athanasius :* “ The substance of the Son
came not from without, neither was it produced from nothing :
it proceeds from the substance of the Father, as brilliancy
proceeds from light, vapour from water.” If in a fragment of
1 In Athanas. de sentent. c. 15.
¥ ic. c. 21.
* De decretis Syn. Nic ο. 25.
TIIZ DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS PRIOR TO ARIANISM. 237
Theognostus, preserved by Photius, the Son is called a κτίσμα,
Photius? presumes this expression comes from a questioner ; as
the work from which it is taken is a dialogue: anyhow, the
formal declaration quoted above proves that he could not have
used the word κτίσμα in an Arian sense.” His successor, the
priest Pierius, professes the same doctrine of the Logos. Photius
says of him:® “ It is true he called the Father and the Son
two substances (οὐσίας) instead of persons or hypostases ; but,
however, he spoke of the two εὐσεβῶς, that is, in an orthodox
manner.” And this testimony of Photius is the more convinc-
ing to us, from the decided manner in which he blames Pierius
in another passage on account of his doctrine of the Holy
Ghost :* if his teaching on the Logos had not been orthodox,
Photius would have blamed him for this too.
The third great Alexandrian of that time was Bishop Peter ;
and although the fragment attributed to him in the Chronicon
Paschale is probably not genuine, two other fragments’ prove
that he attributed to the Son the same nature and Godhead
as to the Father.
It was different at Antioch, where the efforts to uphold the
unity of God degenerated into the doctrine of Paul of Samo-
sata, who considered the Logos as impersonal, and not distinct
from the Father, and saw in Christ only a man in whom the
divine Logos had dwelt and operated. A fellow-countryman
of Paul’s, who shared his sentiments, Lucian, priest of Antioch,
defended for some time this heretical doctrine of the Trinity,
and for that reason was excommunicated for a time.® Later,
however, he acquired great distinction, by the publication of
a corrected copy of the Septuagint, and by the firmness with
which he suffered martyrdom under Maximin.’ The restora-
tion of Lucian to the Church proves that eventually he re-
nounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata; but being still
convinced that the Church did not maintain with sufficient
firmness the dogma of the unity of God, he imagined another
1 Cod. 106. 2 Cf. Dorner, 1.6. S. 737 f.
3 Cod. 119. 4 Cf. Dorner, U.c. 8. 733 ἢ,
5In Angelo Mai, Nova collectio, etc., vii. 806, 307; and Galland. Biblioth,
et, Patrum, i. 108. Cf. Dorner, /.c. 8. 810.
ὁ Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 4, p. 15, ed. Mogunt,
3 Euseb. /7. 2. viii. 13, ix. 6.
ven oe HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
hypothesis of the Trinity, which is noo perfectly known to
us for lack of sufficient information, but which, according to
Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, came out in the heresy of the
Exucontians, and more particularly in that of his disciple
Arius.' Arius himself traced his doctrine to the school of
Lucian, in greeting his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia, who
shared his opinion, with the name of Συλλουκιανιστής (fellow-
Lucianist). This being the case, it is of little importance to
decide whether Arius was personally a disciple of Lucian at
Antioch, or whether his opinion was formed from his writings
only. In the letter from Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Just quoted, one sees that the principles of Lucian were widely
spread in Asia; for Arius not only speaks of Eusebius as
sharing his opinions, but also of a great many other bishops
of Asia, who had all proclaimed that the Son was not eternal
equally with the Father. The denial of the co-eternity of the
Father and the Son seems therefore to have been a funda-
mental point in the doctrine of Lucian”.
Besides, 5, Epiphanius says :* “ Lucian and his followers all
denied that the Son of God had taken a human soul, attri-
buting to Him only a human body, for the sake of endowing
the Logos with human feelings, such as sorrow, joy, and the
like ; and they also declared Him a being inferior to God—a
creature, in fact.” Arius and his partisans made great use of
the σῶμα Χριστοῦ ἄψυχον, and thereby again revealed their
affinity with the school of Lucian. We know also that Lucian
was looked upon as the author of the creed that the Euse-
bians (that is, the friends of Arius) submitted to the Synod of
Antioch in 341, in which, as we shall see, the teaching was
1In Theodoret, H. £. i. 4, p. 15.
? In opposition to the testimonies here adduced, Baronius endeavours (ad ann.
311, n. 12; and 318, n. 75) to clear Lucian of the imputation of heresy ; but
even he is forced to concede that Lucian made use of inaccurate expressions in
the controversy with the Sabellians, particularly with his fellow-priest Pancra-
tius of Antioch, and that therefore he was excommunicated by three successive
bishops of Antioch. Yet Baronius believes that Lucian, whom he defends on
account of his martyrdom, was always orthodox in heart, and that the Arians
had no right to appeal to him ; and that even Alexander, the Bishop of Alex-
andria, was mistaken when, in the letter quoted above, he brought Arianism
into connection with Lucian. Cf. Dorner, J.c. 8. 802, note.
3. Ancoratus, ο. 33, tee BT
ARIUS. 239
not positively heretical, but in which all sharp precision of
dogma is intentionally avoided.*
Sec. 19. Arius.
The Subordinationist theology of Antioch was transplanted
to Alexandria by Arius, the oft-named disciple of the school
of Lucian; and on this new ground it gained strength and
importance. The mind of Arius was disposed to this purely
rationalistic theology; and from his point of view of mere
natural intelligence, it became impossible for him to reconcile
theoretically these two apparently contradictory dogmas of the
equality of the Logos with the Father, and of His distinction
from Him. “ Arius,” says Dorner with justice,? “ takes part
with pleasure and skill in the relative sphere: he handles the
lower categories of logic with dialectic skill; but he never
rises above it: he applies it to everything. He is quite in-
capable of rising to speculative science, properly so called.”
But he would certainly not have created so much disturbance
in the minds of the people, had he not found in Alexandria
a field well prepared to receive this theory of subordination,
even so far back as the time of Origen. A certain hos-
tility had been created against the theology of equality (the
doctrine of the equality of the Son with the Father), which
was taught by Theognostus, Pierius, and Bishop Peter, and
now anew by Bishop Alexander. The representatives of the
old Alexandrian tendency naturally linked themselves with
pleasure to Arius; and thus it was that in later times the
Arians earnestly appealed to the authority of Origen, and
protected themselves under his name, and pretended to pro-
ceed directly from him. Athanasius carefully refuted this.
Besides, the Church of Alexandria was a specially prepared
soil for this new growth: she had been for more than a cen-
tury the philosophizing Church of Christianity (ἐκκλησία φιλο-
1 Τὸ is given by Athanasius, De synodis Arimini et Seleucie, c. 23, and
Socrates, H. LH. ii. 10, but without mention of Lucian. We learn from Sozo-
men, H. Z£. iii. 5, that the Arians attributed it to him.
3.6. 8. 828.
3 Cf. Wolf on the relation of Origenism to Arianism, in the Zeitschrifé fur
luther. Theologie, 1842, Heft 111. S. 23 ff. ; and Ramers, Die Auferstehungs-
cere des es 1851, S. 6, 10.
240 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
codixwtatn). She readily threw herself into all philosophi-
cal and theological controversies. Being in close proximity to
the native country of Sabellianism, she felt constantly called
upon to combat it, and so was led imperceptibly into the
other extreme. Arius himself was Libyan by birth, conse-
quently a compatriot of Sabellius ;+ thus he might have con-
sidered himself specially called on to combat the Sabellian
theory, which annihilated all distinction between the Father
and the Son. Philonism, of which Alexandria was the hot-
bed, seems also to have exercised some influence over the
development of Arianism ? and as the following details will
prove, Arius built on the base of this philosophy. Thus,
(a.) Like Philo, he exaggerated the distinction between the
world and God, and considered the supreme God much too
sublime to enter into direct relation with the world, and the
world much too low to bear any direct action of God. Now
Athanasius proves’ that Arius, and his friends Eusebius and
Asterius, had: appropriated to themselves this fundamentai
proposition of Philo’s philosophy.
(8.) Like Philo, Arius admitted an intermediate being, who.
being less than God, was the divine organ of the creation of
the world (like the created gods of Plato): this intermediate
being was the Logos. Thus the Arian Logos resembled that
of Philo: they are each declared inferior to the Father; and
Philo, who in general considered him as personal, gives to him
the name of ὑπηρέτης Θεοῦ.
(y.) Now the intermediate and inferior being could not be
equal in substance and equal in eternity (consubstantial and
co-eternal) with the supreme and only true God. It may
thus be seen how all the other Subordinationist predicates of
the Logos arise of themselves from the fundamental proposi-
tions of Philo. |
Arius completely failed to perceive the contradiction which
springs from the adoption of an intermediate being. Accord-
1 So Epiphanius asserts, Heres. 69. 1 ; whilst Cave and others, supported by
Photius, pronounce him to have been an Alexandrian.
2 Standenmaier has remarked most powerfully and clearly on this connection,
in his Philos. des Christ. i. 506 ff.
3 Oratio ii. Contra Arianos, c. 24.
ARIUS. 241
ing to his view, the supreme God could not create anything
imperfect ; yet He makes the Son imperfect. If God can
create only perfect beings, it becomes necessary that the
plenitude of perfection, and consequently of divinity, be found
in the Son; if not, the supreme God could create imperfect
beings: thus He could equally have created the world
The analogy between the intermediate being of the Arians
and the Gnostic Demiurge is evident, but the difference which
existed between the two must not be overlooked. They re-
semble each other, inasmuch as neither can produce perfect
beings. But whilst the Gnostic Demiurge only presides over
a period of the world’s existence, the Arian Logos does not
cease to act as long as the world exists.? The age of the
Emperor Constantine was undeniably very favourable for the
rise and rapid propagation of the doctrine of Subordination ;
for after the conversion of the Emperor, many learned heathens
entered the Church without a real vocation, and there spread
on all sides religious theories much more favourable® to half-
pagan Subordinationism than to the profoundly Christian doc-
trine of the equality of the Father and of the Son.
We know but little of the life of Arius before he set forth
his errors, and what is known of him is not very certain.
He embraced at Alexandria the side of the Meletians at first,
but afterwards abandoned it, and was ordained deacon by
Peter Bishop of Alexandria. At a later period, having taken
1 Ritter, lic. S. 25. 2 Ritter, Uc. S. 98 ἢ 8 Mohler, i. 191.
* The history of the life of Arius is found most completely in the Storia critica
della vita di Arrio, scritta da Gaetano Maria Travasa, Cler. Reg. Teatino
(Venezia 1746), and in Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir ἃ Vhistoire ecclésiastique,
t. vi. The other works of most importance on the subject of Arianism are:
Maimburg, S. J., Histoire de l’Arianisme (Paris 1675); the biographies and
monographs on Athanasius ; Christian Walch, Ketzergeschichte (1764), Bd. ii.
S. 385 ff. ; J. A. Stark, Versuch einer Geschichte des Arianismus (Berlin 1783),
2 Theile (of no great value) ; Wundemann, Geschichte der christlichen Glaubens-
lehren von Zeitalter des Athanasius bis auf Greg. d. Gr. (Leipzig 1798), 2 Thle.
8vo; Wetzer, Restitutio vere chronologie rerum ec controversiis Arianorum
exortarum (Francof. 1827); Lange, Der Arianismus in seiner urspringlichen
Bedeutung, in llgen’s Zeitsch. f. hist. Theol. iv. 2, v. 1; Baur, Die christliche
Lehre von der Dreieinigheit, ete. (1841), Bd. i. S. 820 ff. ; Dorner, Die Lehre
von der Person Christi (1845), ΤῊ]. i. S. 806 ff.
°On the Meletians, cf. the author’s essay in the Kirchenlex, Bd. vii
8. 37 ff.
Se
242: HISTORY OF THE:COUNCILS.
the side of the Meletians, he was excommunicated by Bishop
Peter; but his successor Achillas (A.D. 312) reconciled him to
the Church, and ordained him priest.t Soon after, Arius was
put at the head of a Church called Baucalis, as the large
number of Christians in Alexandria had rendered necessary
the division of the town into districts, corresponding with
what are now called parishes. |
Arius was tall and thin; a learned man and a clever logi-
cian; of austere appearance and serious bearing, and yet of
very fascinating manners; at the same time proud, ambitious,
insincere, and cunning” Epiphanius® calls him a perfidious
serpent. Bishop Alexander reproaches him with his avarice,
and speaks of his following composed of women, in such a way
that later historians believed—wyrongfully, no doubt—that
disgraceful inferences might be drawn against his private life,
Two statements by Theodoret,* on the ambition and arro-
gance of Arius, have led to the belief that, after the death
of Achillas (towards the end of 312), Arius strove for the
Episcopal dignity; but seeing his old colleague Alexander ἢ
preferred to him, he conceived a deep hatred against him.
The Arian historian Philostorgius,° on the contrary, asserts
that Arius himself made over to Alexander the votes which
were offered to himself. Neither of these assertions seems
to have been true. Theodoret’ is nearer the truth when
he says, that in the beginning Alexander highly esteemed
Arius. Chronology confirms this statement; for the discus-
sion between Arius and his bishop did not, as it would seem,
1 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. i. 15. The false Acta S. Petri relate that both Bp.
Peter and Achillas were expressly warned by Christ in a vision respecting Arius.
Cf. Baronius, ad ann. 310, n. 4; and Renaudot, Hist. Pat. Alex. p. 67.
2 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. 5, ii. 85; Epiphanius, Heres. 69. 3. The Emperor
Constantine depicts him in the darkest colours, in a letter to Arius himself and
to his adherents, in Gelasius Cyzicenus, Hist. Concil. Niccni, lib, iii. ; in
Mansi, ii. 980 sqq., particularly p. 988 ; and Hardouin, i. 452 566.
Ἀν
4 Hist. Eccl. i. 4. Cf. Walch, Ketzerh. ΤῊ]. ii. 8. 404 f.
5 See Gelasius, U.c. lib. ii. c. 1; Mansi, lc. p. 791; Hard. i. 366.
6 Lib. i. c. 3 of the fragments of Philostorgius at the end of Valesius’ ed. of
the Ch. Hist. of Theodoret.
11, 16
ARIUS, . 243
take place until 318 or 320, when Alexander had been
Bishop of Alexandria for more than six years, and until then
apparently the most profound good feeling had existed be-
tween Arius and him. But whilst admitting that a certain
antipathy existed between them, it must not therefore be
concluded that it gave rise to the doctrinal controversy : this
was simply the result of different theological convictions.
Socrates * thus relates the manner in which this difference first
arose: “Bishop Alexander of Alexandria one day spoke, in
presence of his priests and clergy, of the mystery of the
Trinity, and insisted especially on the Unity in the Trinity,
philosophizing on this grave subject, and thinking he was
gaining honour by his argument. But Arius, who was eager
for dispute, professed to discover Sabellianism in the bishop’s
doctrine. He opposed it vehemently, and asserted that if
the Father had begotten the Son, he who was begotten had
a beginning of his being (ἀρχὴν ὑπάρξεως), and consequently
there was a time when he could not have been (ἣν, ὅτε οὐκ
ἦν); that it also followed that the Son had his beginning from
nothing (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἔχει τὴν ὑπόστασιν)"
_ All history posterior to Arianism proves that Arius was
unjust in accusing his bishop of Sabellianism ; but that which
chiefly proves it is the conduct of Alexander at the Council
of Nicza, and likewise his letters and those of Arius, which
we shall soon have occasion to examine.
Arius admitted, with the orthodox Fathers, that the term’
“begotten” was the palladium which could alone save the’
doctrine of the personal existence of the Son against Sabel-
lianism. He therefore took the idea of “ begotten” as the
groundwork of his argument; but he transferred the idea of
time, which rules every human generation, to the divine gene-
ration, and drew from that, as he thought, with logical neces-
sity, the proposition that the Son could not be co-eternal with
the Father. He did not, however, wish to speak of a priority
1 Cf. Walch, lc. S. 423. The supposition that the Arian question came up
at the Synod of Arles in 314, rests simply upon an error in canon 8, where
Arianis is written by mistake for Afris. See above, p. 189. Cf. Mansi, ii,
472; and Ittig, Hist. Concil. Niceni (Lips. 1712), § 22.
® Hist. Eccl. i. 5. ‘
244 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
in time, properly so called, but only of priority similar to a
priority in time, of the Father to the Son; for, according to
Arius,.time began with the creation, and thus the Son, by
whom aH things were created, and who, consequently, was
before the “ereation, was born also before all time. Other
theologians had, before Arius, already developed this argu-
ment; but he afterwards went beyond it, and thought that the
distinction he had established between the Father and the
Son would fade away if he admitted that the Son is begotten
of the substance of the Father. This fear has apparently
been justified by the history of the word “ consubstantial”
(ὁμοούσιος) ; for this word, as we have already seen, was
rejected by the Synod of Antioch, held in 269. But Arius
not only avoided this definite expression, but all others similar
to it used by the holy Fathers to show that the Son emanated
from the substance of the Father. He not only rejected the
expression, but the thing expressed, by positively declaring
that he was made ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, which was diametrically
opposed to the ὁμοούσιος, and thus went further than any one
else among the ancients. He positively made the Logos a
“ creature” in the special sense of the word.
Arius had another motive for not admitting that the Son
was begotten of the substance of the Father. He believed
that by so doing the divine substance would be divided, whilst
God is essentially indivisible; and, in point of fact, the Arians
constantly reproached their adversaries with considering the
divine substance as something corporeal, and dividing it. They
believed that their doctrine of the Logos alone maintained, not
only the indivisibility and immateriality of God, but likewise
His immutability. The creation of temporal things would,
according to them, have wrought a change in the Creator; for
if the supreme God had made the world, He would have lost
His immutability, which is e6ntrary to the idea we have ot
God. On the contrary, there was no danger in denying the
immutability of the.Son, as being declared to be a creature
who took part in the creation of the world. They said, then,
“Ἔν nature the Son is not unchangeable, but only by His own
will”?
1 Pp. 123. 2 Οὗ Athanas. contra Arian. c. 35; and Ritter, Uc. 8. 23 &
ARIUS. 245
Arius first appeared on the scene with these opinions be-
tween 318 and 320. This date, though uncertain, has every
appearance of probability." Sozomen, Theodoret, and Epi-
phanius relate, as did Socrates, with slight differences of detail
only, the beginning of the Arian controversy.” Socrates does
not say that Bishop Alexander gave rise to the discussion by
a sermon; according to him, it was Arius who began of him-
self to spread his errors. The bishop was blamed for tolerat-
ing the beginning of it. He did not, however, wish to use his
authority against Arius: he preferred to call together his
clergy, and made them argue in his presence with Arius; and
they proclaimed the Son ὁμοούσιος and συναΐδιος (consubstan-
tial and co-eternal with the Father). In the beginning of the
discussion Alexander did not take either side; but towards
the end he approved of those who had defended the consub- |
stantiality and co-eternity of the Son, and commanded Arius
to retract his error. Epiphanius maintains, but it is difficult
to admit the assertion, that the chief adversary and opposer of
Arius was Bishop Meletius, the chief of the schismatics, of
whom we have already spoken. Arius was little disposed to
submit to the orders of his bishop; on the contrary, he sent
to several bishops a written confession of faith, and begged
them, if they approved of it, to send him their adhesion, and
to intercede with Bishop Alexander in his favour? In a
short time he made many friends, especially the celebrated
Eusebius of Nicomedia,* who, being then bishop in the house-
hold of Constantine and his sister Constantia, exercised great
influence over them, and over many of the other bishops.
He interested himself actively with them on behalf of Arius,
and sent him his adhesion in writing.” He, like Arius, was a
disciple of Lucian, and accepted in general the propositions of
Arianism.
“One only,” he thought, “the Father, is unbegotten; the
other (the Son) is truly (that is to say, in the full sense of
1 Cf. Walch, l.c. S. 417 ff.
2 Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 15; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 2; Epiphan. Heres.
69. ὁ.
3 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. i. 15. 4 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1, 6.
5 A hanas. De Sinodis Arimin. et Seleucia, ο. 17.
246 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the word) created, and not of the substance of the Father
(οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γεγονώς). The Son does not parti-
cipate in the substance (οὐσία) of the unbegotten; He differs
from Him in nature and in power, although He was created
in peifect resemblance to the nature and power of His Creator.
No one can express in words His beginning, or even undev-
stand it in thought.”* The letter to Bishop Paulinus of Tyre,
in which Eusebius expresses these opinions, is at the same
‘time a proof of the zeal he displayed in favour of Arius and
his cause; for he reproaches this bishop with not having
declared in favour of Arius, although at heart he shared his
opinions. He exhorts him to repair his fault, and above all
‘to write (as he no doubt had already done himself) to Bishop
Alexander, and set forth the true doctrine, namely, that of
Subordination. He proposed Eusebius of Cxsarea to him asa
model, the celebrated church historian, who, without being a de-
cided Arian, was visibly in favour of this party. Besides these
two, Eusebius and Paulinus of Tyre, there were the bishops,
Theodotus of Laodicea, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of
Berytus, and Aitius of Lydda (or Diospolis), who interested
themselves in favour of Arius.” Very shortly others showed
themselves on the same side: among the most remarkable
were the two Africans, Secundus Bishop of Ptolemais in
Libya, and Theonas of Marmarica, both of whom belonged to
the province of Alexandria, and openly took part with Arius.
Besides, from the Alexandrian and Mareotic clergy, there were
added to the heretical party the two priests Chares and
_Pistus, and the thirteen following deacons,—Achillas, Euzoius,
_Aithalas, Lucius, Sarmates, Julius, Menas, Helladius, Serapion,
Paramnon, Zosimus, Ireneeus, and a second Arius. Among
them also are named Carponas and Eusebius, without men-
tion of the order to which they belonged. These names are
given by Bishop Alexander himself in three lists, made at
different times, for which reason they do not all agree.® Epi-
1 Τὴ a letter of Eusebius to S. Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 6).
It is, however, not certain whether this letter was written at the beginning of
the Arian movement or at a later period.
? Theod. Hist. Eccl. i. 5.
* Theod, Hist, Eccl. i. 4; Soc. Hist. Eccl. i. 6; and Athan. Dep. Arii, i. $11,
ed. Patav.
SYNOD OF ALEXANDRIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 247
phanius, ou the contrary, speaks of seven priests, twelve
deacons, and seven hundred virgins consecrated to God (Egypt
had a great many such) who took part with Arius.’ It is pro-
bable that, in so grave a matter, Alexander early consulted
with other bishops ; at least this may be concluded from some
passages contained in a letter which he wrote later, and which
is found in Theodoret. But it is also certain that at the
beginning Alexander endeavoured to keep the matter as quiet
and peaceable as possible; and that, in connection with his
clergy, he addressed remonstrances not only by word, but in
writing, to Arius and his partisans.’
Sec. 20. The Synod of Alexandria in 320, and tts
Consequences.
Bishop Alexander, seeing the uselessness of his efforts, in
320 or 321 convoked a large ecclesiastical assembly in
Alexandria, at which were present nearly a hundred Egyptian
and Libyan bishops. The matter of their deliberations has.
not reached us; we only know that Arius and his partisans
were anathematized.> His partisans, said Alexander in twu
letters,° were the two bishops Theonas and Secundus, and the
majority of the deacons recently named. Arius wished to
prove that Eusebius of Cwsarea, Theodotus of Laodicea,
Paulinus of Tyre, and, in one word, the greater number of
the bishops in Asia, were condemned with him by the Synod
of Alexandria; but that was a false inference.’ It is
likely that the Synod, after having excommunicated by name
1 Epiph. Heres. 69. 3. 2 Hist. Eccl. i. 4. Cf. Walch, lc. 11. 428, n. 2.
3 See the two letters of Alexander in Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 6; and Athanas.
Depositio Arii, l.c.
4 So reckons Walch, 1.6. ΤῊ]. ii. S. 421, from the expression of S. Athanasius,
that the Arians had been declared heretics thirty-six years ago. Athanasius
wrote this letter (Ep. ad Episc. Zgypti, c. 22) in the year 356, and therefore
indicates the year 320, But it is not a settled point that Athanasius wrote the
letter in question in 356, for he says in it that the Meletians had fallen into
schism fifty-five years before. As, however, we know that this took place in
306, it would seem that Athanasius wrote this letter in 361; and then, in say-
ing that the Arians had been declared heretics thirty-six years before, he must
have had in his eye, not the Alexandrian Synod of 320, but the Nicene Council
of 325. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. iv. S. 381, Anm. 2.
5 Socrat. ἢ. ἢ. i. 6. 6 Socrat. U.c.; and Theodor. le. i, 4
¥ In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, in Theod. i. 5.
248 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the African Arians, and especially those of Alexandria, pro-
nounced a general anathema against the partisans of this
heresy; and from this Arius drew the conclusions which
suited him.’
Although excommunicated, Arius continued to hold con-
gregations for divine service; and Bishop Alexander speaks
of several churches (which he designates as dens of thieves)
where the Arians habitually met, and offered night and day
outrages against Christ, and against the bishop.2 He men-
tions, in the same letter, how they sought in different towns
to attract adherents by their lectures and writings, and espe-
cially sought to deceive women by their flatteries and false-
hoods. They went so far, says he, that they stirred up
against the orthodox the populace and the civil authorities
(still principally heathen, for Egypt depended on Licinius),
and endeavoured, when all was peace, to excite a new perse-
cution.’ Alexander saw himself obliged, by the insolence
and constant machinations of the Arians, as well as by the
open partisanship of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to inform all the
bishops of the position of affairs in elaborate letters. For the
‘same purpose he convoked a new assembly of the Alexandrian
cand Mareotic clergy, and asked all the united clergy (among
them Athanasius, then a deacon) to sign his EZpistola encyclica.
After a very fine introduction on the unity of the Church,
1Cf. Walch, lc. ii. 431.
2 In Theodoret, H. H. i. 4. These outrages consisted in this, that they de-
‘graded the Logos to a creature, and, as usual, accused the bishop of Sabel-
d4ianism. From this time Arius altered, for the use of his followers in divine
service, the ordinary doxology into ‘‘ Glory be to the Father, through the Son,
in the Holy Ghost” (Theod. lib. iv. de heret. fab. c. 1). It is true that
orthodox Fathers have made use of this doxology (e.g. Leo the Great, Sermo
i. de nativit. Dom.), as being equally susceptible of an orthodox interpretation.
Cf. Ittig, Hist. Con. Nic. § 51.
* According to Epiphanius (Her. 69. 8), the Arians had already selected a
bishop of their own for Alexandria, of the name of Pistus; but this could
not have happened so early ; for («) the Arians still hoped at that time for
a reconciliation with Bishop Alexander (Theod. 1.6. i. 6; Sozom. i. 15. Cf.
the remark of Petavius on Epiph. Her. 69. 8). Besides, (6) Athanasius says
expressly (Apol. contr. Arian. c. 24) that Pistus was not ordained bishop until
after the Nicene Council.
* This remarkable document is found in Athanas. Epistola synodalis, etc. T.
i. 1, p. 313, ed. Patay. 1777; t. i. p. 397, ed. Paris 1698: in Socrat. H. E.i. 6;
SYNOD OF ALEXANDRIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 249
Alexander especially complained of Eusebius of Nicomedia,
who had undertaken to protect the heresy, and who recom-
mended Arius and his partisans everywhere by his writings
and letters. This conduct obliged him to speak openly. He
afterwards enumerated the names of the apostates, and ex-
posed their chief errors, which were the following :—
1. “God was not always Father; there was a time when
He was not Father (jv, ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς πατὴρ οὐκ ἦν).
2. “The Logos of God has not always been (οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν) ;
He was created from nothing; God, the self-existent, created
from nothing Him who is not self-existent (the ὧν Θεὸς----
the μὴ ὄντα).
3. “Consequently there was a time when He was not; for
4. “The Son is a creature, a κτίσμα and a ποίημα.
5. “He is not of the same substance as the Father (οὔτε
ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν) ; He is not truly and according to His nature
the Word and the Wisdom of God (οὔτε ἀληθινὸς καὶ φύσει
τοῦ πατρὸς λύγος ἐστὶν, οὔτε ἀληθινὴ σοφία αὐτοῦ ἐστιν); but
one of the works, and of the creatures of God (εἷς τῶν ποιημά-
των Kal γενητῶν). He is only by an abuse (καταχρηστικῶς)
called the Logos ; He was created by the true Logos (ἰδίῳ τοῦ
Θεοῦ λόγῳ), and by the inner (ἐν τῷ Θεῷ) Wisdom of God
(the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of Philo).
“It is by this inner Wisdom (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) that God
created Him (the λόγος προφορικὸς) and all things.
6. “Thus it is that by nature He is subject to change
(τρεπτὸς, that is to say, by nature liable to sin).
7. “He is a stranger to the divine οὐσία, and differs from
it (ξένος τε καὶ δχλῤεῤιθῶ. He does not know God perfectly ;
He does not even know His own nature perfectly.’
8. “He was created for us, so that God might create us by
Him as His instrument; and He would not have existed (ov«
and in Gelasius Cyzic. in Hard. i. 366 sq. ; Mansi, ii. 793 ; most perfectly in
Athanasius. Epiphanius relates (Heres. 69. 4) that Alexander sent seventy
letters of this kind into the different provinces; and we learn from Pope
Liberius, that even Silvester, who was then Pope, received such a letter from
Alexander (Coustant. Hpist. Pontif. p. 426).
1 This is quite consistent, for the knowledge of the creature in its essence
can be derived only from the knowledge of its foundation or Creator. Ritter,
Geschichte der Christ. Phil. Bd. ii. 8. 27.
250 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
ἂν ὑπέστη), had He not been ealled into existence by God
through love for us.” :
Bishop Alexander afterwards refutes these Arian doctrines
by texts from the Holy Scriptures;* and at the end he im-
plores the bishops not to admit the Arians into the communion
of the Church, and to have no confidence in Eusebius and
others like him.
Theodoret? has preserved a second letter of Alexander's
(and of his Synod), addressed, according to the title given by
Theodoret, to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. But not
only is this title wanting in three ancient manuscripts; but
besides, at the time the letter was written, the name Constan-
tinople did not exist. Moreover, this letter was not addressed
to one, but to several bishops, as the contents prove. It is
said in the letter, that Arius and his friend Achillas went
further than Colluthus had done, who had previously founded
a sect in Alexandria.®? Even Colluthus at this time blamed
the conduct of the Arians, who did not submit to the Church,
who held meetings in their dens of robbers, denied the God-
head of our Saviour, misinterpreted those texts of Scripture
for their own purpose which speak of the humiliation of
Christ, which was for our salvation, and endeavoured to stir
the people up against the orthodox, and to excite persecutions
against them by calumnious pamphlets written by disorderly
women. After having been for these several causes excluded
from the Church, the Arians endeavoured by falsehoods, and by
1 Arius had endeavoured to prove his doctrine by separate passages of Scrip-
ture, particularly by those which set forward the human side of Christ, and
which speak of His ignorance of anything, of His pain, of His subordination to
the Father, of His τασείνωσις, etc. Arius was forced to apply all these passages
falsely to the divine in Christ, the λόγος ; for, according to his opinion, the
λόγος was not united to a complete humanity, but only to a human body. Cf.
‘above, Ὁ. 238 ; and Neander, Kirchengeschichte, 2 Aufl., Bd. iv. 8. 690. [An
English translation of Neander’s Church History is published by Clark of Edin-
burgh.] Arius in this resembles his opponent Apollinaris. It is clear that
Arius, in adducing these Scripture proofs, clung to the mere letter: he always
regarded only separate detached passages, and not the whole doctrinal idea of a
biblical author. Cf. Neander, Kircheng. 2 Aufl., Bd. iv. S. 685.
2 Hist. Hecl. i, 4.
3 See more particularly, with reference to him, in Epiphanius, Heres. 69. 2,
and the note of Petavius upon that passage; also in Philastrius, de heresibus,
9, 78 Cf. also Ittig, Hist. Concil. Nic. 1712, ὃ 18.
SYNOD OF ALEXANDRIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 251
concealing their errors,’ to bring other bishops over to their
side, and many of them had succeeded in being admitted into
the communion of the Church. Consequently it became
necessary to unveil without delay their errors, which consisted
in maintaining :
“ That there was a period when the Son of God did not
exist ;
“ That, not existing at first, He was later called into exist-
ence ;
“ That He was created out of nothing, like everything else,
reasonable or unreasonable, and consequently was by nature
liable to change, capable of goodness and of sin;
“ But that God, knowing that He (the Son) would not deny
Him, chose Him above all created beings, although by nature
He had no higher claim than the other sons of God, that is,
than other virtuous men. If Peter and Paul had sought to
reach the same perfection as Christ, their relation to God
would have been absolutely the same as that in which Christ
stood.”
ἡ Then Bishop Alexander again refuted the Arians by texts
of Scripture: he compared them to the Ebionites, to Artemas
and Paul of Samosata; he called them Exucontians (οἱ ἐξ οὐκ
ὄντων), a title which in later times was frequently employed ; he
complained that three Syrian bishops urged the Arians to still
graver excesses ; then returned afresh to biblical proof against
the Arians, and developed the orthodox faith, saying that the
Son was not subject to any change, and is in all things like
the Father, perfect as He is perfect, and in one point only
subordinate to the Father—in not being unbegotten. In other
respects the Son is the exact image of the Father. He is
from all eternity; but from this it must not be concluded, as
the Arians have wrongfully done, and as they falsely accuse
those who are orthodox of doing, that the Son was not be-
gotten: for those two terms, “Being from all eternity,’ and
“not begotten,” are not identical; there is a difference between
them. The Son, being in all things the image of the Father,
should be worshipped as God. The Christian recognises also,
with the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost, who worked in
Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. .
252 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the holy men of the Old Testament, and on the holy teachers
of the New.
Bishop Alexander continued to set forth the other articles
of the faith, and employed the term which became celebrated
later in Christian controversy, the “ Mother of God” (θεοτόκος).
In conclusion, he exhorted the bishops to admit no Arian into
the communion of the Church, and to act as did the bishops
οἵ Egypt, Libya, Asia, Syria, etc., who had sent him written
declarations against Arianism, and signed his τόμος, that is to
say, his treatise (perhaps the encyclical letter of which we
have already spoken). He hopes they will send him similar
declarations, as perhaps the number of the bishops might con-
vert the Arians. He adds in the appendix the names of the
ecclesiastics of Alexandria who were excommunicated along
with Arius.’
Sec. 21. Arius obliged to leave Alexandria ; his Letters and
his Thalia.
Driven from Alexandria by his bishop,” Arius went first to
Palestine, and from thence addressed a letter to his powerful
protector, Eusebius of Nicomedia. In it he complains of the
persecution which he had to suffer at the hands of Alexander,
particularly of being driven from the town; and accuses Alex-
ander of maintaining “that the Father and the Son co-existed
always together, that the Son was not begotten, that He was
begotten from all eternity, that He was unbegotten Begotten,
that the Father was not one moment anterior to the Son, and
that He is of God Himself.”* (It may be seen how Arius
misrepresents some of the doctrinal propositions of Alexander,
as we have already found, because he could not reconcile the
_ eternity of the Son with His divine generation.) Further,
Arius asserts that Eusebius of Ceesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea,
Paulinus of Tyre, etc., and all the Eastern bishops, were
anathematized by Alexander’ because they taught that the
1 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 4. This letter is also printed in Mansi, ii. 642
«qq. Binius has added some notes ; see Mansi, l.c. 659.
* Epiphan. Heres. 69. 3; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 5.
3 Arian inferences, Cf. Dorner, l.c. 813, note 22.
*Pp. 251. 5 See above, p. 246.
ARIUS OBLIGED TO LEAVE ALEXANDRIA, ᾿ς 283
Father existed before the Son. Only three Eastern bishops
were not excommunicated, he adds: these are Philogonius,
Hellanicus, and Macarius, because they have in an impious
manner called the Son, the one an eructation of the Father
(ἐρυγή, according to the forty-fourth' Psalm, ver. 2), the other
a projection (προβολή), the third co-begotten (συναγέννητον).
Arius could not, he said, admit such impiety,’ even if the here-
tics threatened him a thousand times with death. As to the
Arians, he says, they teach “that the Son is not unbegotten,
and that He is not a part of the Unbegotten (with reference to
the sense in which ὁμοούσιος was rejected at Antioch®); that
He was not created of anything which existed before Him ;
but that He was called into being by the will and according
to the plan (of God), before time and before the world (that
is to say, He was before the world was made, but that He was
not eternal), and as full God (πλήρης Θεός), only-begotten
(μονογενής), and unchangeable (ἀναλλοίωτος). Before being be-
gotten, or created, or determined, or founded, He was not; for
He is not unbegotten.” He concludes by being remembered to
Eusebius, who, like himself, belonged to the school of Lucian.*
The exposition Arius here makes of his doctrine agrees per-
fectly, one point excepted, with that which was given a little
further back by the Bishop of Alexandria. Alexander, in
fact, says in his two letters, that Arius made of the Son “a
being who, according to His nature, was capable of virtue or
of sin.” Arius seems to say the contrary in that which pre-
cedes this; but this difference is only in appearance. Arius,
to be consistent, should have said: “The Son being a κτίσμα,
and not of the substance of the Father, is by nature subject
to change, as are all the κτίσματα. But he might also, and
he did actually, affirm that “de facto the Son was immutable,
but that His immutability was the effect of volition, and not
by nature.” Arius, in like manner, takes the expression
πλήρης Θεός in a double sense. He cannot and will not say
1 Ps. xiv Te Ve
2 We see from this, as Neander points out, l.c. S. 701, the violent intolerance
of the Arians, and the persecuting spirit which they afterwards displayed so
greatly.
3 See p. 124. 4 See this letter in Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 5.
254 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
that the Son is by nature equal in glory to the F ather; he
says that He is perfect God only by the will of the F ather,
that is to say, that the Father has made Him partaker of His
divine glory A careful analysis of the principal work of
Arius, called the Zhalia, will show, besides, how well-founded
was the accusation made by Bishop Alexander, that Arius had
here concealed his real sentiments.
Invited, in consequence of this letter, by Eusebius, Arius
went a short time after to Nicomedia, and wrote from thence,
perhaps at the instigation of Eusebius, a polite letter to his
former bishop Alexander, in order to be on as good terms as
possible with him. First, he sets forth in his letter a kind
of creed which should explain the faith, as Arius and his
friends had received it from their predecessors, and even from
the Bishop Alexander himself, as follows :—
1. “There is only one true God, alone uncreate, alone
eternal, alone without beginning, alone wise, good, and power-
ful; one only Judge and King, and alone unchangeable.
2. “Before all time He begot His only Son, and by Him
created the world and all things.
3. “He did not only beget Him in appearance” (Arius
believed in the eternal generation as being only in appearance,
and imputed all real generation to time), “but He actually
called Him into existence by His own will, as an unchange-
able and immutable being.
‘It is remarked with perfect accuracy by Neander, ἴ.6. 5, 691: ““ Although
this idea of Christ (held by Arius) is in contradiction to the true faith of His
Godhead, Arius did not hesitate to assign to Him the name of God, which he
found given to Him in the New Testament and in the ancient creeds, . . . He
probably based his practice upon those passages of the Bible in which the name
of God appears to be assigned in an improper sense to created beings.” Also S.
696, Anm. 1: ‘Arius could not logically apply such an expression as πλήρης
Θεός to Christ ; but in an indefinite sense, as he employed the name of God, he
was able to do so. What was most difficult from his point of view was to
attribute moral immutability to Him ; but this, too, depended upon the mean-
ing attached to it. He was obliged to explain it in this way, that He was
unchangeable, not by nature, but by virtue of the direction of His will, foreseen
by God.”
* We have explained above (p. 253) in what sense Arius understood the expres-
sions unchangeable, etc. Mohler (Athanasius, i. 205) reproaches Arius further
with equivocation in applying the words ‘‘ by His own will” (τῷ ἰδίᾳ βουλήματι)
not merely to the Father, but also to the Son, so that he says, “ΤῊ Son is
THE LETTERS OF ARIUS. - 255.:
4. “The Son is a perfect creature of God (κτίσμα τοῦ
Θεοῦ τέλειον), but yet distinct from all other creatures; He
is begotten, yet again He differs from all that is begotten.
5. “He is not, as is asserted by Valentinus, a projection
(προβολή), nor yet, as the Manicheans assert, a substantial
part of the Father (μέρος ὁμοούσιον τοῦ πατρός) ;* nor, as
the Sabellians wish, the Son-Father;° nor, as is said by
Hieracas, light of light, or one torch emanating from another ;
nor had He a previous existence, and was afterwards be-
gotten and made the Son,—a thing which Bishop Alexander
himself” (whom Arius still addresses as μακάριε πάπα) “ had
often publicly controverted, and with reason.
6. “He was created by the will of God before time, and
before all worlds. He has received His life and His being
from the Father, who also has communicated His glory to
Him; and without taking from Himself, has given Him the
heritage of all things.
7. “There are three persons: God, who is the cause of all
things, who is unique, and without beginning; the Son, who
is begotten of the Father before all things, created and estab-
lished before the worlds. He was not until He was begotten ;
but He was begotten before all time, before all things, and
He alone was called by the Father (immediately) into being.”
He is not, however, eternal or unbegotten, like the Father.
He had not His being at the same time as the Father, as
some say, who thus introduce two unbegotten principles ; but
as God is the monad and the beginning, or the principle of
all things, He is therefore before all things, and consequently
also before the Son, as Bishop Alexander himself has declared
in the Church.
unchangeable by His own will.” But I can hardly believe that this reproach
of Mohler’s is well-founded ; for in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (‘Theo-
doret, i. 5) Arius expresses himself in much the same way, but still so as to
show that it was undoubtedly the will of the Father, and not that of the Son,
which he intended (ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι θελήματι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνιων
᾿σλήρης Θεός). Cf. the translation of this passage, above, p. 253. Even Mohler
has in his translation referred the words in question to the Father.
1The Jesus patibilis of the Manicheans is a substantial part of the Jesus
apatibilis.
* i.e. that there is no personal distinction.
ic. everything else was made through the Son.
bs
σι
for)
HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. ; ae
8. “The Son having received His being from God, who
gave Him glory, life, and all things, so God must be His
principle (ἀρχή), and must rule Him (ἄρχειν αὐτοῦ) as His
God, and as being before Him.
9. “In conclusion, it is attempted to show that the
biblical expressions, the Son is of the Father, ex utero, οἷο.
do not refer to similarity of substance.” ?
During his stay in Nicomedia, Arius wrote his principal
work, called Θάλεια, that is, “The Banquet.” Only fragments
of it remain. They are preserved in the works of S. Atha-
nasius.» The book, it appears, was partly in prose and partly
in verse. The ancients compared it to the songs of the
Egyptian poet Sotades, and pronounced it highly effeminate
and overwrought. According to Athanasius,* there were
some of these “ Thalias” already among the heathen, which
were read at their banquets for the promotion of gaiety.
Arius selected this light form, it seems, to familiarize the
masses with the doctrine taught in his book. With the same
intention he afterwards wrote songs for sailors, carpenters,
and travellers.” Athanasius says® the Thalia was held in
great honour by the friends of Arius, and that they venerated
it as a second Bible. In reality, it contains Arianism in its
strongest form, and at the same time shows clearly its Philo-
1 Ps. ex. 8: S. John xvi. 28; Rom. xi. 36.
2 This letter of Arius is found in Athanasius, de synodis Arimin., etc., c. 16;
Epiph. Heres. 69. 7 ; in German, in Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversamil.
Thi. ii. S. 450 ff. In Epiphanius this letter is signed not only by Arius, but
also by fourteen of his friends. Their names are given above, p. 246. Against
the genuineness of these signatures, we have (1) the fact that Ethales (i.e.
Aithalos), Achillas, the second Arius, and others, who, as we have seen, are
called deacons by Bishop Alexander, appear here as priests. (2) Pistus signs
as Bishop of Alexandria, which, as we showed before, is contrary to all proba-
bility. (3) Besides Pistus, several others sign as bishops, and yet the title of
the letter says it is signed only by priests and deacons. (4) Finally, it is doubt-
ful whether all these friends could have been at Nicomedia at the same time
with Arius.
3 Athanas. Oratio i. contra Arianos, c. 5, 6, 10; de synodis Arimin., etc., n.
15. This writing is mentioned also by Athanas. de decretis synodi Nicane,
c. 16; Epist. ad Episc. Eqypti et Libye, c. 7, 20; de sententia Dionysii, c. 6 ;
Oratio i. 6. Arian. ὃ. 2, 4, 7, 9,10; Socrat. H. 15. i. 9; Sozomen, H. 2. i. 21.
* Orat. i. ὁ, Arian, c. 11. δ Philostorgii /ragmenta, lib. ii. c. 2.
1.0.
THE THALIA OF ARIUS.‘ Z5T.
nian foundation. In one of these fragments’ Arius boasts of
being very celebrated (περικλυτὸς), having had much to suffer
for the glory of God (that is, because he gave the Father the
glory due to Him, as opposed to the Son); and he goes on:
“God has not always been Father; there was a moment
when He was alone, and was not yet Father: later He be-
came so. The Son is not from eternity; He came from
nothing, ete. When God wished to create us, He first created
a being which He called the Logos, Sophia, and Son, who
should create us as an instrument. There are two Sophias:
one is in God (ce. ἐνδιάθετος), by which even the Son was
made. It is only by sharing (μετέχει) the nature of this
inner Sophia of God that the Son was also called Wisdom
(σοφία προφορικός). So also, besides the Son, there is another
Logos—he who is in God; and as the Son participates in
this Logos, He also is by grace (κατὰ χάριν) called Logos and
Son.”
In the second fragment,’ the Zhalia sets forth that with
which, as we have seen, Bishop Alexander had reproached
Arius,—namely, “that the Logos did not perfectly know the
Father; that he could not even entirely understand his own
nature; that the substances (οὐσίαι) of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost are entirely different the one from the
other. These three persons are, in their essence and glory
(δόξα), thoroughly and infinitely dissimilar (ἀνόμοιοι πάμπαν
. ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον). |
In the third fragment*® Arius says, after the Philonian
manner, from the beginning: “God is ἄῤῥητος (ineffable), and
nothing (therefore not even the Son) is equal to or like Him,
or of the same glory. This eternal God made the Son be-
fore all creatures, and adopted Him for His Son (ἤνεγκεν eis
υἱόν). . . . The Son has nothing in his own nature akin to
God, and is not like to Him in essence. The invisible God
is also invisible to the Son, and the Son can see Him only so
far as is permitted by the will of the Father. The Three
Persons of the Trinity are not equal in glory, the Hypo-
: 1 In Athanas. Orat. i. c. Arian. 6. 5.
* LG: δὲν 6
δ Athanas. de synod. Arimin. ο. 15.
BR
258 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
stases (Persons) are not confounded, and one is infinitely more
glorious than the other. God could create a being like unto
the Son, but He cannot create a being more glorious or more
great. That which the Son is, He is through the Father and
the mighty God (ἰσχυρὸς Θεὸς). He (the Son) adores Him
who is more glorious than Himself.”*
Sec. 22. Synod in Bithynia—Intervention of the Einperor
Constantine.
Sozomen? speaks of a Synod in Bithynia which supported
the Arians by an encyclical addressed to all the bishops, asking
them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church.
This Synod was held* by the partisans of Arius, probably
during his stay in Nicomedia, and perhaps even in that town.
The part espoused by so many bishops did not bring about
peace in the Church: the struggle, on the contrary, became
more intense; and there arose so much division among Chris-
tians, and such grievous schisms in all towns, and even in the
villages, that the heathens everywhere turned it into ridicule
on the stage? 5. Athanasius shows us how much occasion
the Arians gave to the heathens for such derision, by describing
their proselytism, which was as improper as it was ridiculous :
for example, how they gained women to their side by asking
sophistical questions, such as, “Hast thou had a son before
thou didst bear?” in order to win them over to their opinion
of the later origin of the Son.’
The political events which then arose undoubtedly increased
1 The Greek text has, τὸν κρείσσονα tx μέρους ὑμνεῖ, i.e. “He praises Him who
is in part better than Himself.” But Arius said before, The Father is in-
finitely more glorious, and consequently He cannot here be designated as ἐκ
μέρους κρείττων. Perhaps it should be translated: ‘‘On His side He praises and
glorifies Him who is more glorious ;” so that ix μέρους τ- κατὰ μέρος, Cf. Viger,
de idiotismis, etc., p. 109.
*i, 15,
3 There is in the acts of the second Synod of Nica (Hard. iv. 407) a letter of
the Church historian Eusebius to Bishop Alexander in favour of Arius, which
belongs to the same time. Eusebius endeavours in this letter, in referring to
Arius’ own letter to Alexander, to show that Alexander had given too dark a
picture of the Arian doctrine.
4 Theodoret, l.c. i. 6; Socrat. i. 6; Soz. 1, 15.
δ᾽ Athanas. Orat, i. 6. Arian. ο. 22.
SYNOD IN BITHYNIA. 259
the trouble in Egypt and in the East, the seat of Arianism.
The Emperor Licinius, to whom Egypt and Asia belonged,
after being vanquished by Constantine in 315, had concluded
a definite peace with him; and in consequence of this treaty
he lived several years on the best terms with his father-in-law
and the Christians. But towards the end of 322 Licinius
took advantage of Constantine’s crossing the frontiers of his
empire, in pursuit of the Sarmatians, to break with him; and
in 323 entered into a war, which towards the autumn of the
year ended in the total defeat of Licinius by sea and land.
This war accounts for the increase of the confusion and divi-
sions in the Church, as well as for the lack of all authentic
history of Arianism during this period (822-323).. Another
circumstance which may thus be explained is the boldness of
Arius in returning to Alexandria. In his struggle against
Constantine, Licinius became the champion of heathenism, and
oppressed the Church, particularly the bishops. Arius had no
further cause to fear Alexander, and the principal obstacle to
his return was thus removed. The actual return of Arius to
Alexandria is proved by Sozomen, and still better by a letter
from the Emperor Constantine, of which we shall shortly
speak. Sozomen* says that “Arius sent messages to the
Bishops Paulinus of Tyre, Eusebius of Czeesarea, and Patro-
philus of Scythopolis, asking permission to officiate as formerly,
and to do so even in Alexandria. As is understood from the
tenor of the letter, these bishops summoned their colleagues
to a council, and allowed Arius and his adherents to hold,
as formerly, private religious assemblies, without, however,
withdrawing themselves from the submission due to Bishop
Alexander, and on the condition of asking for peace and
communion.”?
Constantine, now master of the whole empire, consequently
also of Egypt and the other provinces disturbed by Arianism,
considered it his duty to re-establish religious as well as civil
peace, and. took the necessary measures as soon as he had
returned to Nicomedia. He sent first a long letter to Arius
11 15, 2
5 Sozomen expressly places this fact in the time after the Synod of Bithynia
It seems to adapt itself better to the beginning of the Arian conflict.
260 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
and Bishop Alexander, the purport of which Eusebius has
preserved entire, but which Socrates only gives in fragments.”
He says in this letter, that “he has learnt with great sorrow
that sharper controversies than those of Africa (the Donatist
disputes) have arisen at Alexandria, although it appears to
him that they are questions respecting things of no import-
ance and of no use, which Alexander ought not to have
excited, and about which Arius ought to have kept his dif-
ferent views to himself. They were questions which the
human mind was too weak to solve correctly ; and therefore
both Arius and Alexander should forgive each other, and do
that which he, their fellow-servant, advised them. He thought
that they could easily be reconciled, as they did not disagree
on any main point of the law, nor on any innovation in divine
service, and were therefore substantially at one; that philoso-
phers of the same school had often differed in accessories: we
should be able to bear such differences, but bring them as
little as possible before the people. That was vulgar, puerile,
and unworthy of priests. That, therefore, they ought to agree,
and free him from so great a cause of anxiety.”
It is evident that the Emperor was not at that time aware
of the importance of the Arian controversy, and that his letter
does not merit the great praise it received from Eusebius® and
others. Constantine sent this letter, in the contents of which
Eusebius of Nicomedia perhaps had a hand, to Alexandria* by
the celebrated Bishop Hosius of Cordova. This venerable man,
whom the Emperor usually consulted, was sixty-seven years of
age. He had been a confessor during the persecution of Dio-
cletian ; and the Emperor hoped that his presence would bring
about a reconciliation. It is uncertain what Hosius did at
Alexandria: it is only known that he opposed Sabellianism
there, proving the Christian doctrine of the nature and persons
of the Holy Trinity, probably to make clear the difference
between the Sabellian and the orthodox doctrine. It is not
known if he was present at the Synod of Alexandria, which
1 This shows that Arius was again in Alexandria.
2 Euseb. Vita Constantini, lib. ii. ec. 64-72; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 7;.in Gelae
sius, /.c.; in Mansi, l.c. 802 and 946, where see Binius’ note.
2 Vita Constant. ii. 68. 4 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 7. > Ibid. iii. 7.
SYNOD IN BITHYNIA, 261
deposed Colluthus.! Perhaps this Council was held later.
Unhappily Hosius did not succeed in his mission to Alexandria.”
Philostorgius relates that later he met the Bishop of Alexandria
at a synod at Nicomedia, where he approved of the term
ὁμοούσιος, and excommunicated Arius, The statement is not
probable.”
However, the Emperor’s letter and Hosius’ mission remaining
alike without result, and the Paschal controversy continuing
to disturb many eastern provinces (the custom of the Quarto-
decimans existed still in Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia‘), the
Emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius,’ thought there could be
no better means to re-establish the peace of the Church than
the calling of an cecumenical council.
-1 Athanas. Apolog. c. Arianos, ¢c. 74. * Socmeé. fc. i: 8.
3 Philostorgii Fragmenta, i. 7. Cf. Walch, lc. S. 463.
4 Athanas. Hp. ad Afros, c. 2.
5 Sulpit. Sever. (Hist. ii. 55) refers to this; Nicana synodus, auctore illu
(Hosio) confecta habebatur,
CHAPTER Ti.
THE DISCUSSIONS AT Nic#&a!
Sec. 23. Zhe Synodal Acts.
HE first and principal source from which we draw our
information respecting the deliberations at Nica, must
of course be the acts of the Synod. Unhappily we possess
only three portions of them—the Creed, the twenty Canons,
and the Synodal Decree; and the question arises, whether
this is all which ever existed ; in other words, whether the
separate discussions and debates at Niczea were committed to
writing, and subsequently lost, or whether they neglected to
take minutes of the proceedings. Vague rumours of later
times have reported that minutes were taken; and it is
asserted in the preface to the Arabic edition of the Canons,
that the acts of the Nicene Synod fill no fewer than forty
volumes, and have been distributed throughout the whole
world.” To a similar effect is that which the pseudo-Isidore
writes, in the preface to his well-known collection. “ He had
learnt,” he says, “ from the Orientals, that the acts of Nicaea
were more voluminous than the four Gospels.”* At the Synod
of Florence, in the fifteenth century, one of the Latin speakers
asserted that Athanasius had asked and obtained a genuine
copy of the acts of Nicea from the Roman bishop Julius,
because the Oriental copies had been corrupted by the Arians.*
1 Cf. the author’s Abhandlung iib. die Nictin. Akten, in the Tiib. Quart. 1851,
S. 41 ff.
2 In Mansi, ii. 1062 ; Hard. i. 326.
3 Mansi, i. 8; Hard. i. 6; Baron. ad ann. 325, ἢ. 62.
4 Hard. ix. 235 ; Fabric. 1.6. p. 579. It would seem that the Latin speaker
had here in his eye the spurious Zpistola Athanasii ad Marcum, and the answer
to it (Opp. 8. Athanas. ii. 598), and had confounded the names of Julius and
Marcus.
262
NIC.EA: THE SYNODAL ACTS, 263
Some went so far as even to indicate several collections of
archives in which the complete acts of Nicaea were preserved.
Possevin, for instance, professed to know that.a copy was in
the archiepiscopal library at Ravenna. As a matter of fact,
this library had only a manuscript of the Nicene Creed, which
was written in purple and gold letters, At an earlier period,
Pope Gregory x. had written to the King and to the Catholicus
of the Armenians, to ask for a copy of the acts, which were
said to exist in Armenia, but in vain. Others professed to
know, or offered as a conjecture, that. the documents in request
were at Constantinople or Alexandria, or rather in Arabia.
In fact, they discovered, in the sixteenth century, in old Arabic
MSS., besides the twenty Canons of Nicza already mentioned,
which were well known before, a great number of other eccle-
siastical ordinances, constitutions, and canons, in an Arabic
translation, which all, it was said, belonged to the Nicene
Council, We shall demonstrate beyond a doubt, at sec. 41,
the later origin of these documents.
The same must be said of an alleged collection of minutes
of a disputation held at Nicza between some heathen philo-
sophers and Christian bishops, which 8. Gelasius of Cyzicus,
in the fifth century, inserted in his History of the Council of
Nicea, of which we shall presently have something more to
say. They are also spurious, and as apocryphal as the pre-
tended minutes of a disputation between Athanasius and
Arius." Those who know this history of S. Gelasius only by
hearsay, have taken it for an additional and more complete
collection of the Synodal Acts of Nicza, and thereby have
strengthened the vague rumour of the existence of such. As
a matter of fact, however, there is no evidence of any one
ever having seen or used those acts. An appeal cannot be
made to Balsamon on this point; for when this celebrated
Greek scholar of the twelfth century refers, in his explanation
of the first canon of Antioch, to the Nicene acts, he is evi-
dently thinking simply of the Synodal Decree of Nicza.
We believe we can also show, that from the first no more
acts of Nica were known than the three documents already
1 See below, sec. 27.
4 Cf. Fabricii Biblioth. Greca, ed. Harless, xii. 580,
264 ' HISTORY OF. THE COUNCILS. ”
named—the Creed, the twenty Canons, and the Synodal De:
cree. This is indicated by Eusebius, when he says, in his
Life of Constantine :* “ That which was unanimously adopted
was taken down in writing, and signed by all.” So early as
the year 350, Athanasius could give no other answer to a
friend who wished to learn what passed at Niceea.? If a com-
plete copy of the acts had existed, Athanasius would certainly
have known of it, and would have directed his friend to that.
Baronius* maintains that Athanasius himself speaks of the
complete acts of Nica, in his work de Synodis Arim. οἱ
Seleuc. c. 6 ; but the Cardinal was led into error by an incor-
rect Latin translation of the passage which he quoted, for
the Greek text does not speak of acts properly so called: it
says only, that “ if we wish to know the true faith, there is no
need for another council, seeing we possess τὰ τῶν πατέρων
(that is to say, the decisions of the Nicene Fathers), who did
not neglect this point, but set forth the faith so well, that all
who sincerely follow their γράμματα may there find the scrip-
tural doctrine concerning Christ.” To see in these words a
proof of the existence of detailed acts of the Council, is cer-
tainly to give much too wide a meaning to the text, as Vale-
sius* has remarked, and Pagi also:° it is most likely that
Athanasius, when writing this passage, had in view only the
Creed, the Canons, and the Synodal Decree of Niczea.
In default of these acts of the Council of Nicza, which do
not exist, and which never have existed, besides the three
authentic documents already quoted, we may consider as his-
torical the accounts of the ancient Church historians, Euse-
bius,’ Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus, as well as
some writings and sayings of 8. Athanasius’, especially in his
book de Decretis synodi Nicene, and in his Epistola ad Afros.
A less ancient work is that by Gelasius Bishop of Cyzicus in
the Propontis, who wrote in Greek, in the fifth century, a [is-
tory of the Council of Nica, which is to be found in all the
larger collections of the councils, In the composition of this
work Gelasius made use of the works mentioned above, and
1 Lib. iii, ο. 14. . Α De decretis Syn. Nic. c. 2.
3 Arnales, ad ann. 325, No. 62. 4 Euseb. Vita Constant. iii. 14,
δ Cr.t. in Baron. ad ann. 325,-No; 23. - - 6 Euseb. Vita Const.
NICEA: THE SYNODAL ACTS. 265
had ‘also other ancient documents at his disposal, which had
been carefully collected by his predecessor, Bishop Dalmasius.
We shall see hereafter that he admitted things which were
improbable, and evidently false. Gelasius, however, has in
Dorscheus a defender against the too violent attacks to which
he has been subjected.’
The work of Gelasius is divided into three books, the first
of: which is only the life of the Emperor Constantine the
Great, and contains absolutely nothing relative to the Council
of Nicsea.. The whole of the second book, on the contrary, is
devoted to the history of that assembly. The third is wholly
composed of three letters of Constantine’s ; but we may pre-
sume that it was formerly larger, and contained particularly the
account of Constantine’s baptism, which Photius borrowed from
Gelasius, but which was subsequently mutilated, in order that
the honour of having been the place where the great Emperor
received” baptism might not be taken from the city of Rome.
However, no sort of proof is given in support of this suspicion.
An anonymous Copt undertook a similar work to that of
Gelasius. This writer probably lived a short time after the
Council of Nicsea, and composed a sort of history of this
Synod (Liber synodicus de concilio Niceno) in the Coptic lan-
euage. Four fragments of this work, which was lost, were
discovered more than fifty years ago by the learned archieo-
logist George Zoéga (Danish consul at Rome, a convert to
Roman Catholicism, and interpreter at the Propaganda, who
died in 1809), and were published in the Catalogus codicwm
Copticorum manuscriptorum muset Borgiani. Unfortunately
the proof sheets of this work were almost all lost, in conse-
quence of the death of Zoéga and of his Mecenas happening
immediately after its completion, and from a lawsuit entered
into by the heirs. The learned French Benedictine Cardinal
Pitra has just published these four fragments afresh, with a
-Latin version and notes, in the first volume of his ye issegs sais
Solesmense (Paris 1852, p. 509 sqq.).
1. The first and largest of these fragments contains the
! Fabricius, ἰδ, 581.
‘2 Ittig, Histor. Conc. Nicen. ed. Ludovici, ΠΝ 1719, a p.- 4; Cave,
Historia literaria, s.v. Gelasius Cyzic.
266 -HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
Nicene Creed, with the anathemas pronounced against Arius.
Only the first lines are wanting. Then come some additions
by the author of the Liber Synodicus. The first runs thus :
“ This is the faith proclaimed by our fathers against Arius
and other heretics, especially against Sabellius, Photinus (? who
lived long after Nica), and Paul of Samosata; and we ana-
thematize those adversaries of the Catholic Church who were
rejected by the 318 bishops of Nicwa. The names of the
bishops are carefully preserved, that is to say, of the Eastern
ones ; for those of the West had no cause for anxiety on
account of this heresy.”
This addition had been for a long time in Hardouin’s?! col-
lection in Latin, and in Mansi’s,” and it was generally attri-
buted to Dionysius the Less. The second addition is a more
detailed exposition of the Catholic faith, also proceeding from
the pen of the author of the Liber Synodicus. It says: “We
adore not only one divine perscn, like Sabellius; but we ac-
knowledge, according to the confession of the Council of
Nicsea, one Father, one Son, one Holy Ghost. We anathe-
matize those who, like Paul of Samosata, teach that the Son of
God did not exist before the Virgin Mary—not before He was
born in the flesh, ete. We anathematize also those who hold
that there are three Gods, and those who deny that the Logos
is the Son of God (Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus of
Sirmium).” The author puts next to these two additions a
document which has been handed down to us, the first half of
the list of bishops present at Niczea, containing one hundred
and sixty-one names.
2. The second and shortest of the fragments contains the
second part of the Nicene Creed, not quite accurately repeated
by one or more later believers. To the words Spiritus sanctus
are already added Qui procedit a Patre, an interpolation which
could not have been added till after the second cumenical
Council. Then comes a further Lxpositio fidet, which en-
deavours to work out the consequences of the Nicene Creed,
and is especially directed against Sabellius and Photinus.
3. The third fragment gives us next the end of this Ha-
positio fide. It is followed by two additions, attributed to
1 Hard. i. 311, 3 Mansi, ii. 665.
NICZA: THE SYNODAL ACTS. 267
an Archbishop Rufinus, otherwise tnknown. The first ex-
presses the joy which the orthodox doctrine gives to the
author; the second tells us that each time the bishops rose
αὖ Niceea they were three hundred and nineteen in number,
and that they were only three hundred and eighteen when
they took their seats. They could never discover who the
three hundred and nineteenth was, for he was sometimes like
one, sometimes like another; at last it was manifest that it
was the Holy Spirit. Rufinus then writes a certain number
of Sententie synodi sancte ; but some of these judgments are
on points which were not brought before the Nicene Council,
especially on man’s free-will. They are undoubtedly some-
what similar to the Ezxpositio fidei orthodox, which is con-
tained in the second and third fragments.
4, The fourth fragment contains the Coptic translation of
the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth canons of Nicza.
It is more or less according to the original Greek text,
without the principal meaning ever being altered.
These four Coptic fragments certainly possess interest to
the historian of the Nicene Council, who is anxious to know
all the sources of information; but they have not so much
value and importance as Zoéga and Pitra have attributed to
them. We shall again speak of each of these fragments in
their proper place in the history of the Council of Niczea.
The anonymous author of the book entitled τὰ πραχθέντα
ἐν Νικαίᾳ, several manuscripts of which are in existence, pre-
tends to be a contemporary of the Nicene Council. This
small treatise, published by Combefis,’ and of which Photius
has given extracts,’ contains palpable errors,—for instance,
that the Nicene Council lasted three years and six months.’
It is generally of small importance.
We may say the same of the λόγος of a priest of Ceesarea,
named Gregory, upon the three hundred and eighteen Fathers
of Nicza. Combefis, who has also published this document,’
supposes that the author probably lived in the seventh cen-
tury.” He, however, calls the book® opus egregium ; but, with
1 Combefis, Novum.Auctuarium, Paris 1648, ii. 574 sqq.
3 Biblioth. cod. 256. 3 Combefis, l.c. p. 583. 41.c. Ὁ. 547 sy.
δ ζ,ὦ p. 567 sq. Sic. p. 567.
268 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. |
the exception of some biographical accounts of one of the
bishops present it Nicsa, Gregory gives only well-known
details, and improbable accounts of miracles, Although the
value of these latter small treatises is not great, Hardouin and
Mansi, coming after Combefis, ought to have inserted them in
their collections of the Councils. These Collections contain
all the other known documents relative to the history of the
Council of Nica, and they form the basis of the account
which we have to give of it. We shall hereafter speak of the
numerous canons attributed to the Council of Nica, and of
another pretended creed directed against Paul of Samosata,
Sec. 24. The Convocation by the Emperor.
The letters of invitation sent by the Emperor Constantine
the Great to the bishops, to ask them to repair to Nica, do
not unfortunately now exist, and we must content ourselves
with what Eusebius says on the subject? « By very respect-
Jul letters (τιμητικοῖς γράμμασι) the Emperor begged the
bishops of every country (ἁπανταχόθεν) to go as quickly as
possible to Nicia.” Rufinus says that the Emperor also
asked Arius.? It is not known whether invitations were
sent to foreign bishops (not belonging to the Roman Empire).
Eusebius says that the Emperor assembled an cecumenical
council (σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν) ; but it is not at all easy to
determine the value of the word ofxouvyévn4 However it
may be, Eusebius and Gelasius affirm that some foreign
bishops took part in this great Council. The former Says :
“A bishop even from Persia was present at the Council, and
Scythia itself was represented among the bishops.”® Gelasius
does not mention a Scythian bishop—that is to say, a Goth;
but he begins his work with these words: “Not only bishops
from every province of the Roman Empire were present at
* The letter of imperial convocation given by the Pseudo-Maruthas in the
10th vol. p. 31 of Angelo Mai’s Scriptorum veterum nova Collectio, Rom
1838, is spurious. Cf. p. ix. of the Prafatio by Angelo Mai.
2 Euseb, Vita Const. iii. 6.
* Rufin. Histor. Eccles. i. 1. It is the continuation of his translation of the
History of the Church by Eusebius. If, as is often done, we reckon the nine
books of the-translation, the quotation would be from x. 1,
* Euseb. lc. Ἢ 5 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 7, -
NICZA: THE CONVOCATION BY THE EMPEROR. 269
the Council, but even some from Persia.” The signatures of
the members of the Council which still remain (it is true they
are not of incontestable authenticity) agree with Eusebius and
Gelasius; for we there find one John Bishop of Persia, and
Theophilus the Gothic metropolitan.” Socrates also mentions
the latter, who, he says, was the predecessor of Ulphilas.’
- It is impossible to determine whether the Emperor Con-
stantine acted only in his own name, or in concert with the
Pope, in assembling the bishops. Eusebius and the most ancient
documents speak only of the Emperor’s part in the Council,
without, however, a positive denial of the participation of the
Pope. The sixth Gicumenical Synod, which took place in
680, says, on the contrary: “ Arius arose as dn adversary to
the doctrine of the Trinity, and Constantine aid—Silvester ~
immediately assembled (συνέλεγον) the great Synod at Nica.” *
The Pontifical of Damasus affirms the same fact.? From that
time, the opinion that the Emperor and the Pope had agreed
together to assemble the Council became more and more
general ; and with whatever vivacity certain Protestant authors
may have arrayed themselves against this supposition,’ it cer-
tainly seems probable that in such an important measure the
Emperor would have thought it necessary not to act without
the consent and co-operation of him who was recognised as the
first bishop of Christendom. Let us add that Rufinus had
already expressly said‘ that the Emperor assembled the Synod
ca sacerdotum sententia. If he consulted several bishops upon
the measure which he had in view, he certainly would have
taken the advice of the first among them; and the part of the
latter in the convocation of the Council must. certainly. have
been more considerable than that of the other bishops, or the
sixth Council would doubtless have expressed itself in another
way. The testimony of this Council is here of real import-
ance. If it had been held in the West, or even at Rome,
what it says might appear suspicious to some critics; but it
1 Gelas. Cyzic. Commentarius actorum Concilii Niceni, lib. i. c. 1; in Mansi,
ii. 759; Hard. i. 345. :
5. Mansi, ii. 694, 696, 699, 702. 3 Socrates, Hist. Eccles. iis 41.
4 Actio xviii. in Hard. iii. 1418, 5 Cf. above, the Introduction, Ῥ. 9
Seg. Ittig, ic. $11. 7 Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. i 1.
270. ’ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
took place at Constantinople, at a period when the bishops of ©
this city were beginning to be rivals to those of Rome. The
Greeks formed greatly the majority of the members of the
Council, and consequently their testimony in favour of Rome,
more especially in favour of the co-operation of Silvester, is
very important.’
In order to make the journey to Niczea possible to some,
and at least easier to others, the Emperor placed the public con-
veyances and the beasts of burden belonging to the Govern-
ment at the disposal of the bishops; and while the Council
lasted, he provided abundantly for the entertainment of its
members.” The choice of the town of Nicsea was also very
favourable for a large concourse of bishops. Situated upon
one of the rivers flowing into the Propontis on the borders of
Lake Ascanius, Niceea was very easy to reach by water for
the bishops of almost all the provinces, especially for those of
Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace: it was a
much frequented commercial city, in relation with every
country, not far distant from the imperial residence in Nico-
media, and after the latter the most considerable city in
Bithynia. After the lapse of so many centuries, and under
the oppressive Turkish rule, it is so fallen from its ancient
splendour, that under the name of Isnik it numbers now
scarcely 1500 inhabitants. This is fewer than the number of
guests it contained at the time when our Synod was held.
Src. 25. Number of the Members of the Council.
Eusebius says that there were more than two hundred and
fifty bishops present at the Council of Nicea; and he adds
that the multitude of priests, deacons, and acolytes who accom-
panied them was almost innumerable. Some later Arabian
documents * speak of more than two thousand bishops; but it
1It is to repeat the false allegations of the Pseudo-Isidore, to say that there
was a sort of preparatory Synod at Rome before the assembly of Nicza in 324,
and that Arius was there anathematized. Cf. Mansi, iii. 615; and Walch,
Gesch. der Kirchenvers. 8. 142 f.
2 Kuseb. Vita Const. iii. 6 and 9. 3 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 8.
4The collections of the Melchitic and Coptic canons. Cf. Selden, Com-
mentar. ad Eutychii origines Alexand. Ὁ. 71; Mansi, ii. 1073; Bevereg.
Synodicon, vol. ii.; Annotat. in canones concilii Niceni, pp. 48, 44.
NICEA: NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 271:
is probable that the inferior orders of the clergy were reckoned
with them, and perhaps all together they reached that num-
ber. Besides, there must have been more bishops at Nicwa
than Eusebius mentions; for 8. Athanasius, who was an eye-
witness, and a member of the Council, often speaks* of about
three hundred bishops, and in his letter ad Afros? he speaks
expressly of three hundred and eighteen. This number was
almost universally adopted ; and Socrates himself, who always
follows Eusebius in his details respecting the commencement
of the Nicene Synod, and copies him often word for word,
nevertheless adopts the number three hundred and eighteen ;*
also Theodoret,* Epiphanius,? Ambrose,° Gelasius,’ Rufinus,® the
Council of Chalcedon,’ and Sozomen, who speaks of about three
hundred bishops.” In fact, the number of bishops present
varied according to the months: there were’ perhaps fewer at
the beginning; so that we may reconcile the testimonies of
the two eye-witnesses Eusebius and Athanasius, if we sup-
pese that they did not make their lists at the same time.
The number of three hundred and eighteen being admitted,
it is natural that we should compare it with the three hun-
dred and eighteen servants of Abraham." S. Ambrose,” and
several others after him, notice this parallel. Most of these
three hundred and eighteen bishops were Greeks: among the
Latins we find only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage,
Marcus of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Domnus of Stridon (in
Pannonia), the two Roman priests Victor and Vincent, repre-
sentatives of Pope Silvester.* With Hosius of Cordova, the
most eminent members of the Council were those of the apos-
1 Historia Arianor. ad Monachos, c. 66; Apologia contra Arianos, c. 23
and 25; de Synodis Arimin. c. 43.
2C. 2. 3 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. &
*Theod. Hist. Eccl. i. 7. 5 Epiph. Heres. 69. 11.
6 Ambros. de Fide ad Gratian., i. 1. 7 In Mansi, ii. 818.
8 Rufin. Hist. Eccl. i. 1 (or x. 1).
9 Concil. Chalced. Actio ii. in Hard. ii. 206 ; Mansi, vi. 955.
10 Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 17. 11 Gen, xiv. 14. 38 1.6.
13 Kuseb. Vita Const. iii. 7; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 14; Sozom. Hist. Eccl.
i. 17. This latter puts by mistake Pope Julius in the place of Pcre Silvester.
Many of the names mentioned are found only in the signatures of the Council
of Nicwa, of which we shall speak hereafter. Cf. Ballerini, de Antiquis Coilec-
tionibus et Collectoribus Canonum. In the collection of Galland, de Vetustis
Cancnum Collectionibus dissertationum Sylloge, i. 254 sq.
272 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
tolic sees, Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and
Macarius of Jerusalem: then came the two bishops of the
same name, Eusebius of Nicomedia and of Cxsarea; Potamon
of Heraclea in Egypt, who had lost one eye in the last perse-
cution; Paphnutius of the higher Thebais, and Spiridion of
Cyprus, both celebrated for their miracles. Paphnutius had
one eye bored out and his legs cut off during Maximin’s per-
secution. Another bishop, Paul of Neocssarea, had had his
hands burnt by the red-hot irons that Licinius had commanded
to be applied to them. James of Nisibis was honoured as a
worker of miracles: it was said that he had raised the dead.
There was also seen among the foremost, Leontius of Cesarea,
a man endowed with the gift of prophecy, who during the
journey to Nicsea had baptized the father of 8S. Gregory of
Nazianzus; besides Hypatius of Gangra, and S. Nicolas of
Myra in Asia Minor, so well known for his generosity,’ that
Eusebius could say with truth: “Some were celebrated for
their wisdom, others for the austerity of their lives and for
their patience, others for their modesty ; some were very old,
some full of the freshness of youth.”* Theodoret adds:
“Many shone from apostolic gifts, and many bore in their
bodies the marks of Christ.”®
It is no wonder if, considering their circumstances, there
were some unlearned among so large a number of bishops ;
but Bishop Sabinus of Heraclea in Thrace, a partisan of
Macedonius, was quite wrong when, shortly afterwards, he
laughed at the general ignorance of the members of the
Council of Niceea. After having given vent to his hatred as
a heretic, he did not hesitate to copy one of these Nicene
Fathers, Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical history.* Socrates
has shown that the same Sabinus fell into other contradictions.’
1 All these men are especially named either in the signatures of the acts of
the Synod, or in Athan. Hist. Arianorum ad Monachos, c. 12; Socrat. Hist. Eccl.
i. 8; Sozom. Hist. Hecl. i. 17; Theodor. Hist. Eccl. i. 7; Rufin. Hist. Eccl.
i. 4and 5; Greg. of Naz. in fun. patris. In Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis,
i. 17 sqq., is to be found a biography of 8. James of Nisibis. Finally, Mansi
has given (ii. 637 sq.) a list, composed with the greatest care, of the most cele-
brated members of the Council of Nicza.
* Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 9. 3 Theodor. Hist. Eccl. i 7.
4 Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 8. > Socrat. lc.
NICHA: NUMBEX OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 273-
Among the auxiliaries of the bishops of Nica, he who
hecame by far the most celebrated was Athanasius, then a
young deacon of Alexandria, who accompanied his bishop
Alexander." He was born about the year 300, at Alexandria,
and had been consecrated to the service of the Church in a
very peculiar manner. Rufinus relates the fact in the fol-
lowing manner :—According, he says, to what he heard at
Alexandria from. those who knew Athanasius,? Alexander
Bishop of Alexandria one day saw on the sea-shore several
children imitating the ceremonies of the Church. They did
not do it at all as children generally do in play; but the
bishop remarked that they followed every ecclesiastical rite
very exactly, and especially that Athanasius, who represented
the bishop, baptized several catechumens from among the
children. Alexander questioned them, and what he heard
convinced him, and also his clergy, that Athanasius had really
administered the sacrament of baptism to his little play-
fellows, and that it only required the confirmation of the
Church. Probably the young officiant had not intended to
play, but to do well quod fiert vult ecclesia® According to
the bishop’s advice, all these children were consecrated to the
work of the ministry; and Alexander soon took the young
Athanasius to be with him, ordained him deacon in 319, and
placed so much confidence in him that he raised him above
all the other clergy, and made him an archdeacon, although
scarcely twenty years of age.* It is probable that Athanasius
took part in the Arian controversy from the commencement ;
at least Eusebius of Nicomedia, or other adversaries of his,
attribute Alexander’s persevering refusal of reconciliation
with Arius to his influence. “At Nicsa,” says Socrates,’
“ Athanasius was the most vehement opponent of the Arians.”
1 Socrat. le. * Ruf. Hist. Eccles. i. 14 (or x. 14).
* The Benedictines of S. Maur, in their edition of the works of 9. Athanasius
(i. ix.) ; Tillemont (notes upon S. Athan. No. 2), in his Memoires (viii. 275)
ed. Brux. 1732; and the learned Protestant J. A. Schmidt, in his dissertation
Puer Athanasius baptizans (Helmst. 1701), doubt this narrative. Pagi, on the
contrary, defends it (Critica, ad an. 311, n. 26).
* Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 8; Theodor. Hist. Eccles. i. 26. Gelas. ii. 7 (Mansi,
ic. ii, 818) formally styles Athanasius an archdeacon.
5 Socrat. i. 8.
8
274 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
He was at the same time the man of highest intelligence in
the Synod, and an able logician. This aptness for contro-
versy was particularly valuable in the conflict with such
sophists as the Arians. The bishops had even brought learned
laymen and accomplished logicians* with them, who, like
Athanasius and others who were present, not being bishops,
took a very active part in the discussions which preceded the
deliberations and decisions properly so called,
SEC. 26. Date of the Synod.
All the ancients agree in saying that the Synod took place
under the consulship of Anicius Paulinus and Anicius Juli-
anus, 636 years after Alexander the Great, consequently
325 ap.” They are not equally unanimous about the day
and the month of the opening of the Council. Socrates says:?
“We find from the minutes that the time of the Synod (pro-
bably of its commencement) was the 20th May.”* The acts
of the fourth Gicumenical Council give another date. In the
second session of that assembly, Bishop Eunomius of Nico-
media read the Nicene Creed; and at the commencement
of his copy were these words: “Under the consulship of
Paulinus and Julianus, on the 9th of the Greek month Dasius,
that is, the 13th before the Kalends of July, αὖ Nicca, the
metropolis of Bithynia.”’ The Chronicle of Alexandria gives
the same date, xiii Cal. Jul., and consequently indicates the
19th June. In order to reconcile the data of Socrates with
those of the Council of Chalcedon, we may perhaps say that
the Council opened on the 20th May, and that the Creed
was drawn up on the 19th June. But Athanasius ° expressly
says that the Fathers of Nicza put no date at the commence-
ment of their Creed; and he blames the Arian bishops
Ursacius and Valens, because their Creed was preceded by a
fixed date. Consequently the words placed at the top of the
1 Socrat. i. 8; Sozom. i. 17.
2 For example, Socrat. Hist, Eccles, i. 18, ad finem; and the @cumenical
Council of Chalcedon, Actio ii., in Hard. ii. 286 ; Mansi, vi. 955.
3 Socrat. l.c.
ὁ σῇ εἰκάδι τοῦ Μαΐου μηνὸς ; and consequently not the ix Kal. Junias, as Vale-
sius translates it.
> Mansi, vi. 955; Hard. ii. 286, ® De Synodis, c 5 (cf. ο. 3).
NICZA: DATE OF THE SYNOD. 275
¢opy of the Nicene Creed read at Chalcedon must have pro-
ceeded, not from the Synod of Niczea, but from some later
copyist. But neither can we establish, as Tillemont’ and
some other historians have tried to do, that. this date signifies,
not the day when the Creed was drawn up, but that of the
opening of the Synod. Even if the Synod had affixed no
date to its Creed, we may well suppose that this date was
placed there at a later period, and continue to believe that
the Council opened on the 20th of May 325, and that it
published the Creed on the 19th of June. Baronius found
a third chronological datum in an ancient manuscript, attri-
buted to Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, according to
which the Synod lasted from the 14th June to the 25th
August.?. But we may reconcile this date with the other
two, on the theory that the Synod was called together for the
20th of May. ‘The Emperor being absent at that time, they
held only less solemn discussions and deliberations until the
14th June, when the session properly so called began, after
the arrival of the Emperor; that on the 19th the Creed was
drawn up; and that the other business, such as the Easter
controversy, was then continued, and the session terminated
on the 25th August.
Valesius® and Tillemont* think otherwise. The former
rejects the date given by Socrates, and thinks that the Council
could not have assembled so early as the 20th May 325.
He calculates that, after the victory of Constantine over
Licinius and the Emperor’s return, the mission of Hosius to
Alexandria, his sojourn there, then the preparations for the
Synod, and finally the journeys of the bishops to Nica,
must have taken a longer time; and he regards it as more
probable that the Synod commenced on the 19th June.
But Valesius erroneously supposes that the great battle of
Chalcedon (or Chrysopolis), in which Constantine defeated
Licinius, took place on the 7th September 324; whilst we
have more foundation for believing that it was a year pre-
* Mémoires, ete. ; ‘* Notes on the Council of Nicwa,” n. i. vol. vi. p.. 854.
2 Baron. ad ann. 325, n. 8.
3 Annotat. in Socratis Hist. Eccles. i. 18; and in Eusebeii Vit. Const. fii. 14.
4 Mémoires, l.c. pp..271, 354.
276 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. ᾿
viously, in 323.1 But if we admit that Constantine conquered
Licinius in September 324, and that the next day, as Vale-
sius says,” he reached Nicomedia, there would remain from
that day, up to the 20th May 325, more than eight months ;
and this would be long enough for so energetic and powerful
a prince as Constantine was, to take many measures, espe-
cially as the re-establishment of peace in religion appeared
to him a matter of extreme importance. Besides, in giving
the 19th June as the commencement of the Synod, Valesius
gains very little time: a month longer would not be sufli-
cient to overcome all the difficulties which he enumerates.
Tillemont raises another objection against the chronology
which we adopt. According to him,’ Constantine did not arrive
at Nicea till the 3d July, whilst we fix the 14th June for the
opening of the solemn sessions of the Council in the presence
of the Emperor. Tillemont appeals to Socrates,* who relates
that, “ after the termination of the feast celebrated in honour
of his victory over Licinius, he left for Nica.” This feast,
according to Tillemont, could have been held only on the
anniversary of the victory gained near Adrianopolis the 3d
July 323. But first, it is difficult to suppose that two special
feasts should be celebrated for two victories so near together
as those of Adrianopolis and of Chalcedon: then Socrates ὃ
does not speak of an anniversary feast, but of a triumphal
feast, properly so called ; and if we examine what this his-
torian® relates of the last attempts of Licinius at insurrection,
we are authorized in believing that Constantine celebrated nc
great triumphal feast till after he had repressed all these
attempts, and even after the death of Licinius. Eusebius
expressly says’ that this feast did not take place till after
the death of Licinius. We need not examine whether the
reports spread abroad respecting the last insurrections of Lici-
1Cf. Manso, Leben Constantins d. Gr. S. 368 (Breslau 1817). In favour of
this date he quotes many laws of Constantine’s of the first half of 324, and
which could only have been published after the defeat of Licinius. Cf. Tille-
mont, Hist. des Empéreurs, iv. 194 (ed. Venise 1792) ; and Gibbon, Roman
Empire, 11.
2 Annot. in Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 14. 3 Tillemont, ἴ.6. pp. 277, 354,
4'Socrat. i. 8. 5 Socrat. i. 8.
6 Socrat. i. 4 7 Euseb. Vita Const. ii. 19.
~
NICEA: THE DISPUTATIONS. 9.7
nius were true or ποῦ ; for if Constantine caused false reports
to be spread about the projects of Licinius, it is natural that
he should wish to confirm them afterwards by giving a public
feast... It is true we do not know the exact date of the exe-
cution of Licinius; but it was probably towards the middle
of 324, according to others not until 325:? and therefore the
triumphal feast of which we are speaking could easily have
been celebrated a short time before the Council of Nicza.
Src. 27. The Disputations.
In the interval which separated the opening of the Synod
(20th May) and the first solemn session in the presence of the
Emperor, the conferences and discussions took place between
the Catholics, the Arians, and the philosophers, which are
mentioned by Socrates* and Sozomen.* Socrates says ex-
pressly, that these conferences preceded the solemn opening
of the Synod by the Emperor ; and by comparing his account
with those of Sozomen and Gelasius,’ we see that Arius was
invited by the bishops to take part in them, and that he had
full liberty there to explain his doctrine. We find, too, that
many of his friends spoke in his favour, and that he reckoned
as many as seventeen bishops among his partisans, particu-
larly Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nica, Maris of
Chalcedon, Theodorus of Heraclea in Thrace, Menophantus of
Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Narcissus of Cilicia,
Theonas of Marmarica, Secundus of Ptolemais in Egypt, and
up to a certain point Eusebius of Czsarea.° Besides, a good
many priests, and even laymen, took his side; for, as Socrates
says, many learned laymen and distinguished dialecticians
were present at these conferences, and took part, some for
Arius, others against him. On the orthodox side it was chiefly
Athanasius and the priest Alexander of Constantinople, vested
with power by. his old bishop,’ who did battle against the
Arians.
. ? Gibbon, le. 2 Tillemont, Hist. des Empé€reurs, iv. 195.
a Socrated. §; Ὁ ΘΌΖΟΙΙ 4; 17, * Gelas. ii. 7. 11.
6° Cf. Rufinus, δ i. 5 (or x. 5); Gelas. ii. 7. According to Philostorgius,
there were twenty-two bishops at first favourable to Arius, whose names he
gives. See the Lragmenta Philostorgii, in Valesius, p. 539 (ed. Mogunt.).
7 Socrat. i. 8; Gelas. ii. 7 and 5; in Mansi, ii. 818 and 806. The Dispuiatio
278 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
' Sozomen also mentions these conferences, in which some
wished to reject every innovation in matters of faith; and
others maintained that the opinion of the ancients must not
be admitted without examination.1 He adds, that the most .
able dialecticians made themselves renowned, and were re-
marked even by the Emperor; and that from this time Atha-
nasius was considered to be the most distinguished member of
the assembly, though only a deacon. Theodoret praises Atha-
nasius equally, who, he says, “won the approbation of all the
orthodox at the Council of Nica by his defence of apostolic
doctrine, and drew upon himself the hatred of the enemies of
the truth.”* Rufinus says: “ By his controversial ability
(suggestiones) he discovered the subterfuges and sophisms of the
heretics (dolos ac fallacias).”*
Rufinus, and Sozomen, who generally follows him, mention
some heathen philosophers as being present at the Synod and
at these conferences, either in order to become better acquainted
with Christianity, or to try their controversial skill against it.*
What Gelasius relates is not very probable: he affirms that
Arius took these heathen philosophers with him, that they
might help him in his disputations.? He gives an account, at
a disproportionate length,® of the pretended debates between
the heathen philosopher Phedo, holding Arian opinions, and
Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of
Cvesarea, etc., the result of which, he says, was the conversion
of the philosopher. According to Valesius,’ this account is
entirely false, and what Rufinus relates about the philosophers
is, to say the least, singular. One of these philosophers, he
says, could not be overcome by the most able among the Chris-
tians, and always escaped like a serpent from every proof which
was given him of the error of his doctrines. At last a con-
fessor, an unlearned and ignorant man, rose and said: “In the
name of Jesus Christ, listen, O philosopher, to the truth.
There is one God, who created heaven and earth, who formed
in Niceno concilio cum Ario, printed in the editions of the works of S. Atha-
nasius, is not authentic, as the Bened. editor Montfaucon proves.
1 Sozom. i. 17. 2 Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. i. 26.
3 Rufinus, /.c. i. 14 (or x. 14). 4 Rufinus, 1,6, i. 8 (or x. 8); Sozom. i. 18,’
5 Gelas. ii. 12 ; in Mansi, ii. 826, and Hard. i. 387.
6 Mansi, ἰ.ς. 829-875. 7 Annot. in Socr. Hist. Eccles. i, 8
NICEA: ARRIVAL OF TNE EMPEROR, 279
man of clay, and gave him a soul. He created everything
visible and invisible by His Word: this Word, whom we call
the Son, took pity on human sinfulness, was born of a virgin,
delivered us from death by His sufferings and death, and gave
us the assurance of eternal life by His resurrection. We ex-
pect Him now to be the Judge of all our actions. Dost thou
believe what I say, O philosopher?” The philosopher, won-
derfully moved, could no longer hold out, and said: “ Yes ;
surely it is so, and nothing is true but what thou hast said.”
The old man replied: “ If thou believest thus, rise, follow me
to the Lord, and receive the seal of His faith.” The philo-
sopher turned towards his disciples and hearers, exhorted them
to embrace the faith of Christ, followed the old man, and be-
came a member of the holy Church.!. Sozomen? and Gelasius’
repeat the account of Rufinus. Socrates‘ also relates the prin-
cipal part of the story; but he does not say that the philo-
sophers who took part in these conferences were heathens: his
words seem rather to refer to Christian controversialists who
took the side of Arius.
Sec. 28. Arrival of the Emperor—Solemn Opening of the
Council—Presidency.
During these preparatory conferences the Emperor arrived ;
and if Socrates® is correct, the Synod was solemnly opened
the very day following the discussion with the philosopher.
From the account given by Sozomen at the beginning of the
nineteenth chapter of his first book, one might conclude that
the solemn session in the presence of the Emperor, which we
are now to describe, did not take place till after all the dis-
cussions with Arius; but Sozomen, who certainly made use
of the narrative of Eusebius, tells us® that the Synod was
inaugurated by this solemnity (ἡμέρας ὁρισθείσης τῇ συνόδῳ).
Eusebius thus describes it: “ When all the bishops had entered
the place appointed for their session,’ the sides of which were
? Rufinus, Uc. ο. 3. 2 Sozom. i. 18, 3 Gelas. ii. 18.
4 Socrat. i. 8. 5 Socrat. i. 8. 6 Vita Const. iii. 10.
7 Eusebius (Vita Const. iii. 10) here uses the expression τῷ pscairdrw οἴκῳ
τῶν βασιλείων ; that is, literally, ‘‘the building in the midst of the imperial
palaces.” Theodoret (i. 7) and Sozomen (i. 19) also speak of the Emperor's
280 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
filled by ἃ great number ‘of seats, each took his place, and
awaited in silence the arrival of the Emperor. Ere long the
functionaries of the court entered, but only those who were
Christians ; and when the arrival of the Emperor was an-
nounced, all those present rose. He appeared as a messenger
from God, covered with gold and precious stones—a magni-
ficent figure, tall and slender, and full of grace and majesty.
ΤῸ this majesty he united great modesty and devout humility,
so that he kept his eyes reverently bent upon the ground, and
only sat down upon the golden seat which had been prepared
for him when the bishops gave him the signal to do so. As
soon as he had taken his place, all the bishops took theirs.
Then the bishop who was immediately to the right of the
Emperor’ arose, and addressed a short speech to him, in
which he thanked God for having given them such an
Emperor. After he had resumed his seat, the Emperor, in
a gentle voice, spoke thus: ‘My greatest desire, my friends,
was to see you assembled. I thank God, that to all the
favours He has granted me He has added the greatest, that
of seeing you all here, animated with the same feeling. May
no mischievous enemy come now to deprive us of this happi-
ness! And after we have conquered the enemies of Christ,
may not the evil spirit attempt to injure the law of God by
palace. Notwithstanding this, Valesius (Annotat. in Euseb. Vit. Const. 111.
10) believes that the Council was held in a church, because Eusebius (c. 7)
says expressly that the bishops assembled in an οἶκος εὐκτήριος (from εὐχὴ,
prayer). Although Eusebius makes use of the words οἶκος τῶν βασιλείων (c. 10),
he means a church that may very well be called οἶκος βασίλειος. Theodoret
and Sozomen, he adds, did not understand the expression of Eusebius, and
therefore spoke of the Emperor’s palace. The two apparently contradictory
expressions of Eusebius in ch. 7 and ch. 10 (οἶκος εὐκτήριος and οἶκος βασιλ.)
have by others been reconciled by supposing that some sessions were held in
a church, and others in the Emperor's palace. Cf. Ittig, lc. p. 6.
‘ According to the title of the chapter of Eusebius’ Vita Const. (iii. 11), and
according to Sozomen (i. 19), this bishop was Eusebius himself, the ecclesiastical
historian. According to Theodoret (i. 7) it was Eustathius of Antioch, and
according to Theodore of Mopsuestia it was Alexander of Alexandria. Vale-
sius (Annot. in Euseb, Vit. Const. iii. 11) decides for Eusebius ; and this is
very probable, for we can easily understand that Eusebius might have withheld
his own name, and mentioned the speaker only generally. Baronius (ad ann.
325, n. 55) and Mansi (ii. 663) give the speech which Eustathius of Antioch is
supposed to have delivered, from Gregory of Cesarea, The genuineness of thy»
report is very doubtful. See above, p. 267.
NICA‘SA: OPENING OF THE COUNCIL. 281
new blasphemies! I consider disunion in the Church an evil
more terrible and more grievous than any kind of war. After
having, by the grace of God, conquered my enemies, I thought
I had no more to do than to thank Him joyfully with those
whom I had delivered. When I was told of the division that
had arisen amongst you, I was convinced that I ought not to
attend to any business before this; and it is from the desire
of being useful to you that I have convened you without
delay. But I shall not believe my end to be attained until
I have united the minds of all—until I see that peace and
that union reign amongst you which you are commissioned,
as the anointed of the Lord, to preach to others. Do not
hesitate, my friends—do not hesitate, ye servants of God;
banish all causes of dissension—solve controversial difficulties
according to the laws of peace, so as to accomplish the work
which shall be most agreeable to God, and cause me, your
fellow-servant, an infinite joy.’”? |
Constantine spoke in Latin. An assistant placed at his
side translated his discourse into Greek, and then the Emperor
gave place to the presidents of the Council (παρεδίδου τὸν
λόγον τοῖς τῆς συνόδου mpoédpois”). The Emperor had opened
the Council as a kind of honorary president, and he continued
to be present at it; but the direction of the theological dis-
cussions, properly speaking, was naturally the business of the
ecclesiastical leaders of the Council, and was left to them.
We thus arrive at the question of the presidency; but as we
have already spoken of it in detail in the Introduction, we
may be satisfied with recalling here the conclusion then
arrived at, that Hosius of Cordova presided at the assembly
as Papal legate, in union with the two Roman priests Vito
(Vitus) and Vincentius.
1 We have given the Emperor’s speech according to Eusebius (Vita Const. iii.
12). Theodoret (i. 7) gives certain additions ; but these are taken, with altera-
tions, from a later speech of the Emperor. Cf. Tillemont, U.c. p. 278, a. Gela-
sius (ii. 7) has evidently expanded the speech of the Emperor. It is so full
of words and empty of thoughts, that it certainly is not the speech ‘of the
Emperor Constantine. Cf. Tillemont, J.c. p. 857, n. 7, Sur le Concile de Nicée.
* Vita Const. iii, 13, ' if
282 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Sec. 29. Mutual Complaints of the Bishops.
When the Emperor had yielded the direction of the
assembly to the presidents (προέδροις), Eusebius? tells us
that the disputations and mutual complaints began. By
this he means that the Arians were accused of heresy by
the orthodox, and these in their turn by the Arians. Other
authors add, that for several days divers memorials were sent
to the Emperor by the bishops accusing one another, and by
the laity criminating the bishops; that on the day fixed to
decide these quarrels the Emperor brought to the Synod all
the denunciations which had been sent to him, sealed with
his signet, and, with the assurance that he had not read
them, threw them into the fire. He then said to the
bishops: “You cannot be judged by men, and God alone
can decide your controversies.” According to Socrates, he |
added: “Christ has commanded man to forgive his brother,
if he would obtain pardon for himself.’”?
It is possible that all this account, drawn from more recent
sources, may be only an amplification of what Eusebius relates
of the complaints and grievances which were brought forward ;
and this suggestion has the greater probability when we con-
sider that Eusebius, who tries on every occasion to extol his
hero the,Emperor, would certainly not have passed this act
over in silence. However, it is impossible absolutely to
throw aside the account by Rufinus and his successors, which
contains nothing intrinsically improbable.
Sec. 30. Manner of Deliberation.
We possess but few sources of information respecting the
manner of deliberation which was adopted, from the solemn
opening of the Synod by the Emperor up to the promulgation
of the creed. Eusebius, after having mentioned the grievances
brought by the bishops against one another, merely continues
thus: “Grievances were numerous on both sides, and there
were at the beginning many controversies, accusations, and
replies. The Emperor listened to both sides with much
patience and attention. He assisted both sides, and pacified
1 Vit. Const.i.18. *°%H. £.i.8; Soz.i.17; Rufin. i. 2 (x. 2); Gelas. ii. 8.
NICHA: MANNER OF DELIBERATION. 283
those whe were too violent. He spoke in Greek, in an ex-
tremely gentle voice, answered some with arguments, praised
others who had spoken well, and led all to a mutual under-
standing; so that, in spite of their previous differences, they
ended by being of the same mind.”*
Socrates” describes the discussions almost in the same
words as Eusebius, so also Sozomen : and we may conclude
from their testimony, and still more from the account by
Rufinus; that the discussions between the Arians and the
orthodox, which had commenced before the first solemn session
of the Council, continued in the Emperor's presence. As to
the time during which these debates lasted, Gelasius’ tells us
that “the Emperor sat with the bishops for several months ;”
but it is evident that he confuses the discussions which took
place before the solemn opening of the Synod by the Emperor
with the deliberations which followed (he speaks of the philo-
sophers for the first time after the opening), and he imagines
that the Emperor was present not only at the later, but also
at the preliminary deliberations.
Rufinus maintains further, “that they then held daily ses-
sions, and that they would not decide lightly or prematurely
upon so grave a subject; that Arius was often called into the
midst of the assembly; that they seriously discussed his
opinions; that they attentively considered what there was
to oppose to them; that the majority rejected the impious
system of Arius; and that the confessors especially declared
themselves energetically against the heresy.” It is nowhere
said whether those who were not bishops were admitted to
these later debates and disputations, as they had been to the
first. Sozomen® speaks only of the bishops who had dis-
cussed ; Eusebius says nothing of such a limitation; and
it is probable that men like Athanasius, and the priest Alex-
ander of Constantinople, might speak again upon so important
a question. Amongst the bishops, Marcellus of Ancyra sig-
nalized himself as an opponent of the Arians.’
1 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 13. τ Ae. ix: 8: 3. Be 1, 20:
“lc. i, 2. si hee TE Box 3 Bile. ἴς 20. οἷς
7 Athanas. Apologia c. Arianos, q 23, 82, pp. 118, 118; Op. t. i. 2, ed
Patav. 1777.
284 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
The analogy which we may suppose to have existed be-
tween the Nicene and later Synods has caused the admission
that at Nicza the members of the Synod were divided into
commissions or private congregations, which prepared the
materials for the general sessions.’ But we find no trace
of this fact in the ancient documents; and the accounts of
Eusebius and others leave us rather to suppose that there
were no such commissions, but only general sessions of the
bishops.
Our information respecting these sessions is unfortunately
very slight and defective; and except the short intimations
that we have already seen in Eusebius and his successors,
few details have reached us. Gelasius himself, elsewhere so
prolix, says no more than Eusebius and Rufinus; for what he
relates of the discussions of the heathen philosophers can
only have occurred at the commencement of the Council, if it
happened at all. We should have been very much indebted
to him, if, instead of the long, dry, and improbable discussions
of the heathen philosopher Phado, he had transmitted to us
something of the discussions of the theologians.
SEC. 31. Paphnutius and Ὁ πον
Some further details furnished by Rufinus give no more
information respecting the doctrinal discussions with the Arians,
but have reference to two remarkable bishops who were pre-
sent at Nicea. The first was Paphnutius from Eeypt, who,
he says, was deprived of his right eye, and had his knees cut
off, during the persecution by the Emperor Maximin. He had
worked several miracles, cast out evil spirits, healed the sick
by his prayers, restored sight to the blind, and the power of
their limbs to the lame. The Emperor Constantine esteemed
him so highly, that he frequently invited him: to go to his
palace, and devoutly kissed the socket of the eye which he
had lost. ,
The second was Spiridion of Cyprus, who from a shepherd
became a bishop, continued to tend his flocks, and made him-
self famous by his miracles and prophecies. One night, when
robbers entered his fold, thzy were detained there by invisible
1Cf, Mohler, Atianas. i. 229 2 Rufin. i. 4 (x. 4).
NICEA: DEBATES WITH THE EUSEBIANS. AQ
bonds, and not till the next morning did the aged shepherd.
perceive the men who had been miraculously made prisoners.
He set them free by his prayer, and presented them with »
ram, in order that they might not have had useless trouble.
Another time he compelled his daughter Irene, after she was
buried, to speak to him from her tomb, and tell him where she
had placed a deposit. which a merchant had entrusted to him;
and she gave, in fact, the required information. Such is the
account given by Rufinus,’ who is followed by Socrates” and.
Gelasius.’
Src. 32. Debates with the Euscbians. The ὁμοούσιος.
Athanasius gives us some details respecting the intervention
of a third party, known under the name of Eusebians. It was
composed, at the time of the Council, of about twelve or fifteen
bishops,* the chief of whom was Eusebius of Nicomedia, wie
gave them his name. Theodoret’ says of them: “They attempted
to conceal their impiety, and only secretly favoured the blas-
phemies of Arius.” Eusebius of Ceesarea often sided with them,
although he was rather more adverse to Arianism than the
Eusebians, and stood nearer to the orthodox doctrine. If we
wished to employ expressions in use in reference to modern
parties and assemblies, we should say: At Nica the orthodox
bishops formed, with Athanasius and his friends, the right ;
Arius and some of his friends the left; whilst the left centre
was occupied by the Eusebians, and the right centre by Euse-
bius of Cesarea.°
Athanasius’ tells us that “the Eusebian intermediate party
was very plainly invited by the Nicene Fathers to explain their
opinions, and to give religious reasons for them. But hardly
had they commenced speaking when the bishops were con-
11, 4, δ. 24.11, 12. 8 ij, 9-11.
ὁ That is the number, after deducting from the eighteen to twenty-two origi-
nal friends of Arius (see above, p. 277) those who were decidedly and com-
pletely on his side.
od Fi
6 A more thorough examination of the doctrinal position of Eusebius will be
found below, sec. 46.
7 Athan. de decretis Syn. Nic. c. 8. It is evident from the close of c. 2,
that Athanasius is speaking here generally of the Eusebians, and not of the
Arians. Cf. c. 4, 5, 18, and Hp. ad Afros, ο. 5.
286 ‘ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
vinced of their heterodoxy,” so stronely was their tendency to
Arianism manifested. Theodoret* probably alludes to this fact
when he quotes from a pamphlet by Eustathius of Antioch,
that the Arians, who were expressly called Eusebians in the
eighth chapter, laid before the Synod a Creed compiled by
Eusebius, but that this Creed was rejected with great marks of
dissatisfaction, as tainted with heresy. We know that Vale-
sius, ‘in his notes upon Theodoret,? advances the opinion that
the Creed in question was compiled, not by Eusebius of Nico-
media, but by Eusebius of Cesarea; but we shall see further
on, that the historian submitted to the Council quite another
Creed, which has been highly commended, and which would
certainly neither have merited nor provoked such strong dis-
satisfaction from the bishops. .Moreover, 8. Ambrose says
expressly, that Eusebius of Nicomedia submitted a heterodox
writing to the Council.
When the Eusebians saw that the Synod were determined
to reject the principal expressions invented by the Arians—
viz.: the Son is ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, a κτίσμα and ποίημα ; that He
is susceptible of change (τρεπτῆς φύσεως) and ἣν ὅτε οὐκ ἣν,
—they tried to bring it about that in their place biblical
expressions should be selected to define the doctrine of the
Church, in the hope that these expressions would be suffi-
ciently vague and general to allow another interpretation which
might be favourable to their doctrine. Athanasius, who relates
this fact,* does not say precisely that the Eusebians proposed |
these biblical expressions, but that they would have rejoiced
in them. However, if we consider their habitual conduct, and .
their continual and oft-repeated complaint that an unbiblical
expression had been selected at Niczea, we can hardly be wrong
in supposing that they actually suggested the use of expressions
drawn from the Bible. The Fathers showed themselves dis-
posed to accept such, and to say, “The Logos is from God, ἐκ
τοῦ Θεοῦ" (instead of “ out of nothing,” as the Arians wanted
it); the Eusebians’ consulted together, and said, “We are willing
71:7, 8, ee ae _ 3 Ambros. de Fide, lib. iii. ὁ. 7.
4 Epist. ad Afros, 6. 5; Opp. t. i. 2, p. 715, ed. Patay.
’ § Athanasius here distinguishes clearly between the Arians and Euseb‘ans,
and speaks first of the termini technici of the former, and of the sophistries of
NICZA: DEBATES WITH THE EUSEBIANS, 287
to accept the formula; for all is from God, we and all crea-
tures, as says the apostle.” When the bishops found out this
falseness and ambiguity, they wished to explain more exactly
the words “ of God,” and added (in their Creed), “ The Son
is of the substance of God (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ) ;” and
they could no longer pretend to misunderstand this. The
bishops went on, and said further, “ The Logos is the virtue
of God, the eternal image of the Father, perfectly like to the
Father, immutable and true God ;” but they remarked that the
Eusebians exchanged signs amongst themselves, to notify that
they agreed with these expressions: for in the Bible man is
also called an image of God, the “ image and glory of God ;””
even the locusts are called a “power of God.”* The term im-
mutable applies alike to man; for S. Paul says, “ Nothing can
separate us from the love of Christ ;”* and even the attribute
of eternal may be applied to man, as we see it in 8. Paul.’
In order to exclude this dishonest exegesis, and to express
themselves more clearly (λευκότερον), the bishops chose, in-
stead of the biblical expressions, the term ὁμοούσιος (that is,
of the same substance, or consubstantial).° By this expres-
sion they meant, “ that the Son is not only like to the Father,
but that, as His image, He is the same as the Father; that
He is of the Father ; and that the resemblance of the Son to
the Father, and His immutability, are different from ours: for
in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling
the latter (in trying to give their own meaning to the words ix Θεοῦ), It is
therefore quite incorrect in Neander (Ch. Hist. vol. iv.) to say: ‘‘ Athanasius,
in his Hp. ad Afros, preserves many important circumstances bearing upon
the inner history of the Council ; but he misses the true state of the case in
remarking only two parties in the Council, declared Arians, and partisans of
the doctrine of consubstantiality.” But even Mohler (Athan. i. 281) is mis-
taken when he refers to the Arians (properly so called) that which Athanasius
says in the passage mentioned concerning the Eusebians (with reference to ἐκ
#:,v), Athanasius makes a clear distinction between the Arians and Eusebians.
11 Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 17. 31 Cor. xi. 7.
3 In the LXX. ἡ δύναμις μου (E. V. “‘my great army”).—Ep.
4 Rom. viii. 35 (E. V. ‘* Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ?”).
Cf. vers. 38, 39.—Ep.
5.2 Cor. iv. 11. [The word employed is ἀεί. See Athanas. de decretis Syn,
Nic. 6. 20, t. i. p. 177 ; and Ep. ad Afros, c. 5, t. i. 2, p. 715, ed. Patay.
5 For a defence of this expression, cf. Nat, Alexander, H. Z, t. iv. Diss. xiv.
p. 368 sqq., ed. Venet. 1778. 3
288 , HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the divine commands. Moreover, they wished to indicate by
this, that His generation is different from that of human
nature ; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but in-
separable from the substance of the Father; that He and the
Father are one and. the same, as the Son Himself said: “ The
Logos is always in the Father, and the Father always in the
Logos, as the sun and its splendour are inseparable.”*
Athanasius speaks also of the internal divisions of the
Eusebians, and of the discussions which arose in the midst of
them, in consequence of which some completely kept silence,
thereby confessing that they were ashamed of their errors.”
As they began more clearly to foresee that Arianism would be
condemned, the Eusebians grew colder in its defence; and the
fear of losing their offices and dignities so influenced them,
that they ended by nearly all subscribing to the ὁμοούσιος
and the entire Nicene formula.? Eusebius of Nicomedia, in
particular, proved himself very feeble and destitute of cha-
racter ; so much so, that even the Emperor, before and after-
wards his protector, publicly reproached him for his cowardice,
in a letter which we still possess, and related how Eusebius
had personally and through others entreated him to forgive
him, and allow him to remain in his office.*
Src. 33.—The Creed of Eusebius of Cesarea.
Eusebius of Czesarea made a last attempt to weaken the
strong expression ὁμοούσιος, and the force of the stringently
defined doctrine of the Logos. He laid before the Council the
sketch of a Creed compiled by himself, which was read in the
presence of the Emperor, and proposed for adoption by the
assembly. After a short introduction, the Creed was con-
ceived in these words: “ We believe in one only God, Father
Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible; and in the
Lord Jesus Christ, for He is the Logos of God, God of God,
Light of Light, life of life, His only Son, the first-born of all
creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also
1 Athanas. de decret. Syn. Nic. c. 20, pp. 177, 178; and Mohler, Athanas.
i. 232.
2 Athanas. de decret, Syn. Nic. c. ὃ, p. 165, 3 Atnan. le
4 Theodoret, i. 20,
NICEA!: THE CREED OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA. 289
everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption,
who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third day,
returned to the Father. and will come again one day in His
glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in
the Holy Ghost. We believe that each of these three is and
subsists: the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son,
the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as our Lord also said,
when He sent His disciples to preach: Go and teach all
nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Eusebius added, that this
was his true belief; that he always had believed thus; that
he always would believe it, and anathematize every heresy.’
He relates, that after the reading of this formula nobody arose
to contradict him; that, on the contrary, the Emperor praised
it very highly, declared that he thus believed, exhorted every-
body to accept the Creed and to sign it, only adding to it the
word ὁμοούσιος" The Emperor, he adds, himself explained
this word ὁμοούσιος more exactly: he said it did not signify
that there was in God a corporeal substance, nor that the
divine substance was divided (between the Father and the
Son), and rent between several persons ;* for material relations
cannot be attributed to a purely spiritual being.”
After these words of the Emperor, says Eusebius, the bishops
might have added the word ὁμοούσιος, and given to the Creed
that form in which it might be universally adopted, to the
exclusion of every other.
It is possible, indeed, that the Council may have taken the
formula of Eusebius as the basis of its own; at least the com-
parison of the two Creeds speaks in favour of that hypothesis ;
but even if this were so, it is not the less true that they
differ considerably and essentially: the word ὁμοούσιος is the
1 The letter of Eusebius to his Church, in which this creed is contained, is
found in Athanasius, de dec. Syn. Nic., in the Append. p. 187 sq., and in
Theodoret, i. 12.
* Mohler (Athanas. i. 237) has misunderstood the words of Eusebius, in sup-
posing him to say that the Emperor approved the formula of Eusebius, but yet
exhorted them all to subscribe, not this, but the Nicene formula.
3 See above, p. 244.
5. In the ietter of Lusebius, named above, Athan. Jc. n. 4, p. 188 ; Theodoret,
i. 12; Socrat. i, 8,
4
290 Δ 4 ΠῚ Ὁ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,: : ’:
principal point, and moreover it is not correct to say that the
Nicene Fathers added no more than this word to the Eusebian
formula. The Arians would perhaps have been able to admit
this Creed, whilst that of Niczea left them no subterfuge. It
is besides evident that in his account of the matter Eusebius
has not spoken the whole truth, and his account itself explains
why he has not done so. In fact, when they presented the
Nicene Creed to him to sign, he begged a moment for re-
flection, and then signed it;+ and then feared, as having
hitherto been a protector of Arianism, that he would be blamed
for having given his siguature. It was in order to explain
this conduct that he addressed a circular letter to his Church,
in which he related what we have just borrowed from him,
—namely, the Creed he had proposed, its acceptation by the
Emperor, etc. After having transcribed the Nicene Creed in
extenso, with the anathemas which are attached to it, he con-
tinues, in order to excuse himself: “ When the bishops pro-
posed this formula to me, I did not wish to consent to it
efore having minutely examined in what sense they had taken
the expressions ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁμοούσιος. After several
questions and answers, they declared that the words ἐκ τοῦ
πατρός did not imply that the Son was a part of the Father ;
and that appeared to me to correspond with the true doctrine,
which proclaims that the Son is of the Father, but not a
part of His substance. For the sake of peace, and in order
not to depart from the right doctrine, I would not resist the
word ὁμοούσιος. It is for the same reason that © admitted the
formula, ‘He is begotten, and not created,’ after they had ex-
plained to me that the word created designates in general all
other things created by the Son, and with which the Son has
nothing in common. He :is not a ποίημα, He is not similar
to things created by Himself; but He is of a better substance
than all creatures: His substance is, according to the teach-
ing of the Scriptures, begotten of the Father; but the nature
of this generation is inexplicable and incomprehensible to the
ereature.” “As to the word ὁμοούσιος, Eusebius continues,
“it is supposed that the Son is ὁμοούσιος with the Father, not
after the manner of bodies and mortal beings (ζῶα), nor in
1 Socrat. i. 8. 2 That is, not as a man, ¢@g., is ὁμοούσιος with his parents,
NICZA: THE: CREED OF EUSEBIUS OF CAISAREA, 2901
such a way that the stibstance and power of the Father are
divided and, rent, or transformed in any way; for all that is
impossible with a nature not begotten of the Father (ἀγένητος
φύσις). The word ὁμοούσιος expresses that the Son has no
resemblance with the creatures, but is like in all things to the
Father who has begotten Him, and that He is of no other
hypostasis or substance (οὐσία) than that of the Father. I
have agreed to this explanation, as I know that some ancient
bishops and celebrated writers have also made use of the word
ὁμοούσιος After these explanations as. to the meaning of
the Nicene formula, which were supplied in the presence of
the Emperor, we have all given our assent, and we have found
nothing unacceptable in the anathema attached to the Creed,
seeing that it prohibits expressions which are not found in
Holy Scripture. In particular, it has seemed to me quite
right to anathematize the expression, ‘He was not before He
was begotten;’ for, according to the universal doctrine, the
Son of God was before His corporeal birth, as the Emperor
himself affirmed: by His divine birth He is before all eternity;
and before being begotten de facto (ἐνεργείᾳ) by the Holy
Ghost of Mary, He was κατὰ δύναμιν in the Father.”?
These last words certainly do no honour to the character of
Eusebius. He must have known that the Arians did not hold
what he attributed to them—namely, that the Son was not.
before His appearance in the flesh (by Mary) ; for the Arian ex-
pression οὐκ ἣν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι (He was not before He was
begotten) refers evidently to the generation of the Son by the
Father—a generation anterior to time—and not to His genera-
1 Eusebius probably has here in view Origen’s Dial. c. Marec., and probably
still more Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (in Ath. de dec. Syn. Nic. c. 25)
and Gregory Thaumat. (de Fide, c. 2). Cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, 8.v. ὁμοούσιος. The
Arians found fault with the word su. that it was not in the Holy Scriptures. In
opposition to them, Athanasius defended it (de dec. Syn. Nic. c. 21) ; and Neander
remarks (Ch. Hist. vol. iv.): ‘*The defenders of the Homoousion could say, It
was not necessary to make use of merely scriptural expressions, but to teach
Bible doctrine, although, in other words, new circumstances might render new
forms of expression necessary for the development and defence of biblical truth,
and the fear of unbiblical expressions might serve to hinder the refutation of
doctrines which were unhiblical in their essence and spirit.”
* Eusebii Zp. in Ath. at the end of his book, de dec, Syn. Nic. ; and Theo-
doret, .c. Socrat. lc. has omitted this passage.
992 . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
tion in time by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin
Mary, as Eusebius sophistically suggests. He must have
known, besides, in what sense the Council rejected the οὐκ ἣν
πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι : he had recourse, however, to a dishonest
artifice, giving another meaning to words perfectly clear in the
Arian system, and attributing a gross folly to the old friends
he had forsaken.
S. Athanasius has already remarked upon this;? and it is
astonishing, after that (not to speak of other writers), that
even Mohler has overlooked the fact.? But on the other side
Mohler® has with justice pointed out with what partiality Euse-
bius everywhere puts forward the Emperor’s intervention, as
if the Nicene Creed had been his work, and not the bishops’.
According to his account, one should imagine that the Em-
peror hindered free discussion by his presence, whilst S.
Ambrose and §. Athanasius both assure us of the contrary.‘
The latter particularly asserts: “ All the Nicene bishops con-
demned this heresy; ... and they were not constrained to
this by anybody, but they quite voluntarily vindicated the
truth as they ought.”?
The zeal displayed by the Emperor Constantine for the
ὁμοούσιος, and of which he gave proofs by the deposition of
the Arians, contrasts strongly with the manner in which he
regards the controversy at the beginning, and which he ex-
pressed before the Synod in his letter to Alexander Bishop of
Alexandria, and to Arius.° Constantine had been at that
time, according to all appearance, under the influence of the
bishop of his residence, Eusebius of Nicomedia, so much the
more as he was only a layman, and in fact only a catechu-
men himself. But during the Council Hosius’ doubtless
helped him to understand the question more thoroughly, and
the subterfuges of the Arians certainly also contributed to
give the Emperor a strong aversion to a cause which was
defended by such evil means.
2 De decret. Syn. Nic. c. 3. * Mohler, Athanas. i. 237. *1.¢. 235.
4 Ambros. Hp. 13; Athan. Ep. ad Episc. Agypti et Libye (in the old edd.
given erroneously as Orat. 1. c. Arian.), c. 13, p. 223, t. i. ed. Pat.
5 Οὐκ ἀνάγκη δὲ σοὺς κρίναντας ἦγεν ἐπὶ τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ πάντες προαιρίσει Thy ἀλήθειαν
ἐξιδίκουν, ἹΠεσσιήκασι δὲ τοῦτο δικαίως καὶ ὀρθῶς (ἰ.ς.).
5 See above, p. 260. * Cf. Neander, le.
NICZA: THE NICENE CREED, 299.
Sec. 34. ‘The Nicene Creed.
Tillemont,' relying upon a passage of 5. Athanasius,” has
thought he might venture to attribute to Bishop Hosius the
ereatest influence in the drawing up of the Nicene Creed.
But the assertion of 5. Athanasius applies only to the part
taken by Hosius in the development of the faith of Nicwa:
he does not speak in any way of a special authorship in the
compilation of the formula of Nica. It is the same with
the expression of 5. Hilary: Hujus igitur intimande cunctis
fidei, Athanasius in Nicena synodo diaconus, vchemens auctor.
exstiterat® Here also only the great influence which S. Atha-
nasius had in the deliberations of the Nicene Council is spoken
of; but it is not said that he gave the idea of the Creed.
We know, in fine, from S. Basil,* that Hermogenes, then a
deacon, subsequently Bishop of Cvesarea in Cappadocia, acted
as secretary to the Synod, and that he wrote and read the
Creed.
This Creed, the result of long deliberations, many struggles,
and scrupulous examination, as the Emperor’ himself said,
has been preserved to us, with the anathema which was affixed
to it, by Eusebius, in a letter which he wrote to his Church,
and which we have mentioned above: also by Socrates,’ Gela-
sius,’ and others. It is as follows:
Πιστεύομεν εἰς Eva Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων
ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν" καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν
Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονο-
γονῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς
ἐκ φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιη-
θέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν
τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ" τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, ἐναν-
θρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελ-
θόντα εἰς οὐρανοὺς͵ καὶ ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
τς, p. 280 b. )
2In his Hist. Arianorum ad Monachos, c, 42, Athanasius says: Οὗςος ἐν
Νικαίᾳ πίστιν ἐξέθετος ;
. 3 Hilar, Pictav. Fragm. ii. c. 88, p. 1806, ed. Bened. 1693.
_ * Basil. 319 ; Tillemont, p. 280 Ὁ.
δ In Socrat. i 9, p. 30 ed. Mog. : $i. 8, τ 7 8. 26, ὍΝ,
294- HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. °
Kai εἰς τὸ Ayov Πνεῦμα. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ἣν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ
ἣν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἣν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ
ἐξ ἑτέρας, ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ
τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ κα-
θολικὴ ᾿Εκκλεσία
“We believe in one Gop, the Father Almighty, Creator of
all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jrsus Christ,
the Son of Gop, only- Béctitthh of the Father, that is, of the
substance of the Father, Gon of Gop, light of light, very Gop
of very GoD, begotten, not made, ‘being δὲ the same substance
with the F ather, by whom all thines were made in heaven
and in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came
down from heaven, was incarnate, was made man, suffered,
rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and He
will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the
Holy Ghost. Those who say, There was a time when He
was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He was
1 We give here the text of the Creed as it is found in the letter of Eusebius of
Cxsarea to his Church (in Athan. de decret. Syn. Nic. Append. ; Opp. t. i. p.
188, ed. Pat.).. Athanasius gives this text, with some slight and unimportant
variations, in his letter ad Jovianum imperat. c. 3 (Opp. t. i. 2, p. 623). It is
also found in Theodoret, Hist. Hecl. i. 12; Socrat. i. 8 ; Gelasius, ii. 35 ; in the
Acts of the @cumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and elsewhere.
‘Sozomen, however (i. 20), from a regard to the discipline of the Arcana, would
not transmit the Nicene Creed to us. A careful comparison of all these texts
has been made by Walch, Bib. Symbol. p. 75 sqq. More recently August Hahn
{Biblioth. der Symbole, 1842) has published such a comparison, but not, as he
erroneously asserts, with the text from the Eusebian letter as its basis, but from
the copy in Ath, Lpist. ad Jovianum. An ancient Coptic translation of this
Creed, or rather two fragments of it, were discovered by the renowned Zoéga (see
above, p. 265) half a century ago, and published by Pitra in the Spicilegium
Solesmense (Paris 1852, t. i. p. 513 sqq. N. I. II.). On the erroneous view of
Valla, that the Synod of Niczea also drew up the so-called Apostles’ Creed,
ef, Ittig, Le. p. 44. In the 7th vol. of the Scrip. Vet. Nova Collectio of Angelo
Mai, p. 162, there is a Creed said to have been offered at Nicza in opposition
to Paul of Samosata, but which is evidently directed against the Nestorians
and Monophysites, and consequently is of later origin, and belongs to the period
of the christological controversies. Finally, Zoéga and Pitra (1.6. pp. 523-525)
have published an ancient Coptic fragment (N. III.) which professes to contain
Sententias Synodi Nicene, but which : sets forth not only the principal points ot
the Nicene doctrine, but also speaks of the freedom of the human will. This
fragment has no claiin to proceed from the Nicene Synod, but is elaborated by
amore recent writer, who wished to put together the principal points of the
Niceile doctrine, and generally of the or thodox faith,
NICEA: THE NICENE CREED, 295
made ‘of nothing’ (He was created), or who say that He is of
another hypostasis, or of another substance (than the Father’),
or that the. Son of God is created, that He is mutable, or
subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
All the bishops, with the exception of five, declared them-
selves ready immediately to subscribe to this Creed, under the
conviction that the formula contained the ancient faith of the
apostolic Church. This was.so clear, that even the Novatian
bishop Acesius, although separated from the Church on points
of discipline, gave witness to its dogmatic truth, and adopted
the Creed unconditionally, saying, “The Council has intro-
duced nothing new in this act, O Emperor; this has been the
universal belief. since apostolic times.”? The five bishops
who at first refused to sign were: Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Theognis of Nica, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of. Mar-
marica, .wnd Secundus of Ptolemais. They even ridiculed the
term ὁμοούσιος, which could only refer, they said, to sub-
stances emanating from other substances, or which came into
existence by division, separation, and the like.* In the end,
however, all signed except Theonas and Secundus, who were
anathematized together with Arius and his writings.* They
were also excommunicated.> But a writer on their own side,
Philostorgius, says that these three bishops did not act honestly
in their subscription; for he relates that, by the advice of the
Emperor, they wrote, instead of ὁμοούσιος, the word ὁμοιούσιος
(similar in substance, instead of one in substance), which has
almost the same sound and orthography. We see, indeed,
from the beginning that the signatures of these three bishops
were not considered sincere; for Bishop Secundus, when he
1 That is, “‘not of one substance with the Father.” The Nicene Creed still
uses the expressions οὐσία and ὑπόστασις as identical.
* Soer. 1. 10; Soz. i..22; Gelas. ii. 29,
3 Socrat. i, 8. On Luther’s repugnance to the word ὁμοούσιος, cf. Ittig,
Zc. p. 47. :
4 Soz. i. 21,
5 Soz. 1. 9; Theod. i. 7, 8. S. Jerome maintains erroneously (Dial.. contra
Luciferum, ὁ. 7) that Arius recanted, and adopted’ the ὁμοούσιος. He probably
confuses the Synod of Nicsea with a later one at Jerusalem, or the presbyter
Arius with the deacon of the same name. Cf. Walch, Ketzerh. ii. 480 ; Schréckh,
Kircheng. Thi. v. 5. 350.
ὁ Philostorg. Fragmenta, i. 8, at the end of Valesius’ ed. of Evagrius.
796 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, °
was exiled, said to Eusebius of Nicomedia: “Thou hast sub-
scribed in order not to be banished ; but I hope the year will
not pass away before thou shalt have the same lot,”?
Sec. 35, The Signatures,
It appears that, at the time of S, Epiphanius (cir. 400),
the signatures of all the 318 bishops present at Nicza still
existed.” But, in our own time, we have only imperfect lists
of these signatures, disfigured by errors of copyists, differing
from each other, and containing the names of only 228
bishops. Moreover, the pames of several bishops are omitted
in these lists whom we know to have been present at Nicea ;
for instance, those of Spiridion and Paphnutius, The name
even of Marcellus of Ancyra is inaccurately given as Pan-
charius of Ancyra.® But in spite of these faults of detail,
the lists may be regarded as generally authentic, They are,
it is true, in Latin, but they bear evident traces of translation
from the Greek, What proves their antiquity still more, is
the circumstance that the members of the Council are grouped
in them by provinces, as in other ancient Synods; for in-
stance, at those of Arles and Chalcedon. That, however,
which is of greatest importance, is the fact that the provinces
named in these lists perfectly agree with their political divi-
sion at the time of the Nicene Council; and particularly that
those provinces whose limits were assigned at a later period
are not mentioned, The bishops of these countries (6.7.
Euphratesia, Osrhoéne, etc.) are, on the contrary, classed quite
correctly according to the names of the ancient provinces.
This is why the Ballerini have with justice defended the
authenticity of the lists of signatures at the Nicene Council
against some objections made by Tillemont.* —
Zoéga has discovered a new list of this kind in an ancient
Coptic manuscript, and Pitra published it in the Spicilegium
Solesmense.? He has givem not only the Coptic text, but by
1 Philostorg, Frag. i. 9. * Epiphan, Heres. 69. 11.
3 These lists are printed in all the best collections of the Councils, as Mansi,
ji. 692 sqq. -
. 4 Ballerini, de Antiq. Collect. ; in Galland. de Vetustis Canonum Collections
bus, i. 254. | |
δ Paris 1852, i. 516 spp.
NICZA: MEASURES TAKEN. AGAINST THE ARIANS, 297
comparing it with the Latin lists still extant he has made καὶ
a new list of Nicene bishops distributed equally in provinces,"
and thus corrected and completed. len lists known up to the
present time,
Even before Zoéga, Selden? had given another list trans-
lated from: the -Arabio, which numbers altogether 318 per-
sons, but includes the names of several priests, and frequently
of many bishops, for one and the same town; so much 80,
that Labbe® and Tillemont* have decidedly rejected this list
as apocryphal. Another shorter list, given by Labbe, and
after him. by Mansi, does not belong at all to the Nicene
Council, but to the sixth Cicumenical.? In fine, Gelasius
gives the shortest list: it mentions only a few bishops who
sien for all the ecclesiastical provinces.’
Src. 36, Measures taken by the Emperor against the Arians, .
When the formula of the Synod was laid before the
Emperor, he looked upon it as inspired by God, as a revela-
tion from the Holy Spirit dwelling in men so holy,’ and he
threatened to banish any oné who would not sign it.” We
have already seen the effect produced by these threats. But
the Emperor fulfilled them without delay, and exiled to
Illyria Arius and the two bishops Secundus and Theonas,
who had. refused to subscribe, as well as the priests who were
attached to them:? At the same time he ordered the books
of Arius and his friends to be burned, and he threatened all
who concealed them with pain of death. He even wished to
annihilate the name of Arians, and ordered them in future
to be called Porphyrians, because Arius had imitated Porphyry
in his enmity to Christianity.’* Subsequently Eusebius of
Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicszea were also deposed and
banished, because, while admitting the Creed, they would not
recognise the deposition of Arius, and had admitted Arians
1 P. 529 sqq. ? Tillem. 355 ἢ, 3 In Mansi, il. 696.
# lies 5 Mansi, ii. 696 et 697, nota 7.
® Gelas. ii. 27, 36; Mansi, i ii, 882, 927. 7 Socrates, i. 9.’
8 Rufinus, ΗΠ. LH. i 5:(x. .5);
_. 9 Philostorg. Supplem. 539, ed. Vales Mogunt. 1679; Sozom. i. 21; Socr. i, 9.
10 Cf. the letter of Constantine to the Bishops, etc.; Socrates, 1; 9, p- 32, ed,
BMogunt.
298 9. S HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. |
amongst: them.’’ At thé same time, the churches of Nicea
and Nicomedia were required by the Emperor to elect orthodox
bishops in their place. The Emperor: particularly blamed
Eusebius of Nicomedia, not only for having taught error,
put for having taken part in Licinius’ persecution of the
Christians, as well as etoge intrigues against Ceaiantine
himself, and deceived him.” |
Src. 37. Decision of the Easter Question,
The second object of the Nicene Council was the removal
of the difficulties, which had existed up to that time, as to
the celebration of the festival of Easter. The old contro-
versy respecting Easter was great and violent; but almost
greater and more violent still is that which has been raised
among learned men of later times on the Paschal controversy,
and on purely accessory questions belonging to it—for ex-
ample, whether the Primate had gained or lost in this con-
troversy—so that the true point of the controversy has been '
almost lost from sight.
The first who went most thoroughly into this question
was the learned French Jesuit, Gabriel Daniel,in 1724. <A
German professor, Christopher Augustus Heumann, presented
independently, almost at the same time, the result of his
studies upon the Easter controversy. Mosheim examined
the whole of this question anew, yet only with reference to
the work of Daniel (he had not been able to lay his hand
on Heumann’s dissertation); and the greater number of his
successors accepted his conclusions, particularly Gane in
the first volume of his Ketzerhistorie.*
The same question has been debated with a new interest
in modern times, because of its relation to the criticism of
the Gospels ; and particularly by the Tiibingen school, in the
interest of its peculiar theories. But the best work published
on this subject is that of Dean Weitzel, at the time a deacon
1 Theodor, i. 19, 20; Sozom. i. 21; Athanasii Apolog. contra Arianos, c. 7,
ΟΡ. 102, ed., Patav.
2 Constantine’s letter against Eusebius is found partly in Theodoret, Hist.
Ecéles. i. 20; complete in Gelas. iii. 2; in Mansi, ii. 939; and Daron. ad an,
$29, n. 13 sq. Ct. the notes of Valesius on Theodoret, i. 20,
38. 666 ff.
NICEA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 299
at Kircheim, under the title of Die christl. Passafeier der
drei ersten Jahrhunderte (The Christian Paschal Controversy
of the Three First Centuries).' He has cleared up several
points which had remained obscure through want of complete
original information.
Ly the use of these preparatory works, amongst ἈΠΙΕῚ we
must mention the Dissertation of Rettberg, published in Igen’s
Zeitschrift fir historische Theologie (Gazette of Historical
Theology),? and by personally investigating anew the existing
sources of original information, we have “artived at the fol-
lowing results :—As the Old Testament is the figure of the
New, Christians in all times have recognised in the paschal
lamb of the Jews the prototype of Christ, and His great
expiatory sacrifice upon the cross. The Messianic passages
in the Bible had already compared Christ to a lamb, and in
the New Testament S. John the Baptist had explicitly called
Him the Lamb of God;* besides which, the slaying of the
Lamb upon the cross corresponded fully with the slaying of
the Jewish paschal lamb. The typical character of the Jewish
paschal lamb was so evident in the eyes of the ancient
Christians, that the Apostle Paul* called our Lord Jesus
Christ “ our Passover (τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν). a
All parties unanimously agreed, in the controversy which
rose later about the celebration of Easter, that the festival
itself had been instituted by the apostles. But the existence
of this controversy proves that, if the apostles prescribed the
celebration of the festival of Easter, they did not determine
how it was to be celebrated, so that different practices arose
in different countries.
It is commonly supposed that there were only two separate
ways of celebrating Easter—that of Asia Minor, and that of
the West ; but the most modern researches have established
beyond doubt that there were three parties in these divisions,
of which two were in the Church herself, and a third be-
longed to an heretical Ebionite sect.
If we would characterize these three in a general manner,
we might say: The latter held, with the continuance of the
obligation of the ancient law in general, the validity of the
1 Pforzheim 1848. 21832, bd. 2 %S. Johni. 36. #1 Cor. νι ἧς
300 Olt HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
old legal passover: their festival then, properly speaking, was
not Christian; it was rather Jewish. The two other parties,
both looking from a Christian point of view, believed in the
abrogation of the ancient law, and their festival was purely
Christian. In their opinion, the prototype—that is to say,
the Jewish Easter—had ceased, after having received its ac-
complishment in Christ; whilst the Ebionites, or the third
party, wished still to preserve the type and the typical feast.
But the two parties who regarded the matter equally from
a Christian point of view, differed on two points: (a) as to
the time of the Easter festival, and (Ὁ) as to the fast,
To the one, as to the other, Easter was the great festival
of Redemption by Christ. But the great drama of Redemp-
tion had two particularly remarkable moments—the death
and the resurrection of the Lord; and as the Jewish feast
lasted for several days, Christians alsa prolonged their Easter
for several days, so as to comprehend the two great moments
of the work of redemption. Thus both sides celebrated (a)
the day of death, and (8) the day of resurrection. They
were also agreed as to the time of the celebration of the
festival, in so far as the two parties were agreed, to the
greatest possible extent, as to the date of the death of Christ,
and chose, as the first decisive point in deciding the festival,
the 14th of Nisan, not because they regarded the Jewish law
as binding upon that point, but because Christ’s Passion had
actually commenced on that date; and thus they formed
their conclusions, not on legal, but on historical grounds.
However, even with this common basis, divergences were
possible, in that some insisted upon the day of the week, and
wished specially to preserve the remembrance of that upon
which Christ had died, and also that upon which He had
risen again, These—and they were principally the Westerns
—consequently always celebrated the anniversary of the death
of Christ upon a Friday, and the day of resurrection upon
a Sunday, considering this custom as the ἀληθέστερα τάξις
(truer order), in opposition to the Jewish ordinance The
others, on the contrary, belonging chiefly to Asia Minor, in-
* Sec Constantine’s letter upon the Nicene decrees, in Eusebius, Vita went,
iii. 18, : .
NIC-EA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 301
sisted upon the day of the year and of the month, and wished
above all to celebrate the remembrance of the Lord’s death
exactly upon the day of the month on which it happened,
which, according to them, was the 14th Nisan. They be-
lieved, as we shall see hereafter—and the Westerns held the
same opinion—that Christ had not partaken of the paschal
lamb with His disciples in the last year of His life, but that
on the 14th of the month Nisan, before the feast of the
passover, He had been crucified ;* consequently they wished
to celebrate the Saviour’s death on the 14th Nisan, whatever
day of the week it fell upon, even were it not a Friday.
Thus the first difference as to the time consisted in this,
that the one considered above everything the day of the week
upon which Christ died, whilst the cthers attached the most
importance to the day of the month or of the year. But the
former did not neglect either the day of the month or of the
year: with them also the 14th Nisan (ιδ΄ = 14) was decisive ;
that is to say, they too regulated their festival according to
the «6. When the 14th Nisan fell upon a Friday, the two
parties were agreed about the time of the festival, because the
day of the week and of the month coincided. But if, for
example, the 1d’ fell upon a Tuesday, the Asiatics celebrated
the death of Christ upon the Tuesday, and the Westerns on
the following Friday ; and if the 18’ fell upon a Saturday, the
Asiatics celebrated the death festival upon that Saturday,
whilst the Westerns kept it still on the Friday following.
All this it is needless to discuss; but one point is not cer-
tain—namely, whether, when the ἐδ΄ (and consequently their
commemoration of the death) did not fall upon a Friday, but,
for instance, on a Wednesday, the Asiatics celebrated the
feast of the resurrection the third day after the commemora-
tion of the death—in this case on the Friday—or kept it on
the Sunday. Weitzel holds the latter opinion ;? but he has
not been able to bring sufficient proofs in support of his
decision. All depends here upon the sense given to the words
of Eusebius: “The majority of bishops had (in the second
century) decreed that the μυστήριον τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως
1 See the details which follow.
8 Οἱ, S. 103, 104, 112, 26.
302 = + “HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS: -
could be celebrated only on a Sunday.”? Does he by μυστήριον
τῆς ἐκ vexp., etc., refer to the mystery of the resurrection ?. If
so, it demonstrates that the feast of the resurrection had until
then been celebrated upon other days. To escape this argu-
ment, Weitzel takes μυστήριον in the sense of sacrament, that is
to say, the reception of the holy communion; and according to
him, these bishops ordained the communion of the resurrection
to be received only on Sunday; whilst previously the Asiatics
had been satisfied to celebrate the feast of the resurrection on
Sunday, but had been accustomed to communicate on the day
upon which the 14th Nisan fell. _ We should rather hold the
opinion that it was the feast of the resurrection which pre-
viously had not been celebrated on Sunday. This question of
the communion leads us to the second point of difference be-
tween the Asiatics and the Occidentals, that is to say, the fast.
This divergency arose from the different way of conceiving
of the day of the death of Christ. The Westerns considered
it exclusively as a day of mourning: they looked upon it, so
to speak, from the historical side, and were in the same state
of mind as the disciples upon the day of the death of Christ,
that is, in deepest sorrow. The Orientals, on the contrary,
rather considered this day, from its dogmatic or doctrinal side,
as the day of redemption; and for this reason it was to them,
not a day of mourning, but of joy, dating from the moment
when Christ died, and had thus accomplished the work of
redemption. Yet the hours, of the day preceding the moment
of death were spent by them in mourning, in memory of the
Passion of Christ. They completed the fast at the moment of
the death of Christ—three o’clock in the afternoon—and then
they celebrated the feast of the communion, that is to say, the
sacred rite of the feast, with the solemn Agape (love-feast) and
the δεῖπνον Κυρίου (Supper. of the Lord). The Occidentals,
on the contrary, considering the whole day as consecrated to
mourning, continued the fast, a sign of mourning, and did not
end it until the joyful morning of the resurrection. It was
upon this day that they celebrated the Easter communion,”
and not upon the Saturday, as Mosheim has supposed.
It is a secondary question, whether the Eastern Church
1 Euseb. Hist. Lccl. v. 23. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 23.
NICHA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION, 303
ended their fast upon the 14th Nisan after the Easter com-
munion, or recommenced it once more, and continued it to the
day of the resurrection. The words of Eusebius,’ impartially
considered, are favourable to the first opinion ; for his ἐπελύεσθαι
(to loose) and his ἐπίλυσις (loosing) of the fast indicate rather
a total completion than a simple suspension. In spite of this, -
Mosheim? has attempted to demonstrate, from a passage of
S. Epiphanius,’ that the Audians,* a degenerate branch of the
Quartodecimans, of Asia Minor, fasted again after their Easter
feast. But even if the Audians did in fact follow this custom,
it cannot from this be concluded that it was an universal Eastern
custom. In the second place, Mosheim was the first to see in
this passage what he wished to demonstrate; and he mis-
understood it, as we shall see hereafter when speaking of the
sect of the Audians.
This difference respecting the fast was not the only one.
Not merely was the day of the end of the fast not the same
with the Eastern and Western Churches, but there was no
perfect uniformity in the manner (εἶδος) of fasting,’ and this
difference went back to the remotest times. S. Ireneus indi-
cates this in the fragment of his letter to Pope Victor, which
Eusebius has preserved:° “Some,” says he, “fast only one
day; others two; others, again, several days.” Then come
these obscure words, ot δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ
νυκτερινὰς συμμέτροῦσι τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. If we place a
comma after τεσσαράκοντα, the sense is this: “Others fast
forty hours, reckoning the hours of the day and night;” that
is to say, they fast equally by day and night. Massuet has
understood the passage in this way.’ But if we place no
comma after τεσσαράκοντα, the sense is: “Others fast in all
forty hours hy day and night (perhaps the twenty-four hours
1 Euseb. v. 2u.
5 Commentar. de rebus Christianorum ante Const. M. p. 441.
* Epiphan. Heres. 70. 11.
+See Mosheim, Ch. Hist. (Murdock), Ὁ. ii. Pt. ii. c. δ, § 23, n.—Ep.
ὅ Trenzeus says (in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24): οὐδὲ yap μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἰσεὶν
ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας.
ὄν, 24, :
7 In the dissertations subjoined to his edition of S. Irenezus, t. ii dissert. ii,
ari. 1, 23-28, pp. 74-77.
804 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, ᾿
of Good Friday and sixteen hours on Saturday).” Valesius
and Bohmer defend this interpretation. Gnueseler gives a third
explanation. He proposes to read τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, or more exactly,
σὺν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, instead of τὴν ἡμέραν, and translates it thus:
“Others reckon forty hours in all with their day ;” that is,
they fast upon the day they consider as the passover, or the
day of the death of Christ, and begin with the death-hour
(three hours after noon) a new fast of forty hours until the
resurrection." We do not think that such a modification of the
text, wanting in all critical authority, can be justified; but
we cannot absolutely decide between Massuet and Valesius,
which is happily unnecessary for our principal purpose.
S. Irenzeus clearly says that the differences in the manner
of celebrating Easter were then of no recent date—that they
had also existed in the primitive Church. After Valesius’
translation, S. Irenzeus concludes that this difference was the
result of the negligence of the rulers (κρατούντων) of the
Church; but Massuet has proved that this translation was
incorrect, and demonstrated that the expression κρατεῖν does
not here mean to rule, but to maintain (a custom), and that
8. Ireneeus intended to say, “who (our ancestors), it appears,
have not sufficiently maintained the matter (παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς
κρατούντων), and thus have bequeathed to their descendants a
custom which arose in all simplicity, and from ignorance.””
What we have justrsaid plainly proves, that the two parties
of whom we speak, the Asiatic and Western Churches, were
both perfectly established upon a Christian and ecclesiastical
basis; for Easter was a festival equally important and sacred
to both, and their difference had regard, not to the kernel of
the matter, but to the shell. It was otherwise, as we have
already indicated, with the third party, which, for the sake of
brevity, we call the Ebionite or Judaic sect.” It had this in
common with the Asiatic party, that it determined the cele-
bration of Easter according to the day of the month or of the
year (the 16’), without regard to the day of the week. Con-
1 Giescler, Kirchengesch. 8te Aufl. Bd. i. S. 197 f. note ce. [A translation is
published by Clark of Edinburgh. }
2 Cf, Irenei Opp. ed. Massuet, t. i. p. 340, note x., and t. ii. dissert. ii. § 27, p. 76.
3 They will be described at greater length below.
NIC.EA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 305.
sequently there were two parties of Quartodecimans, if we take
this expression in its more extended sense ; that is to say, two
parties who celebrated their Easter festival upon the 14th Nisan,
who were thus agreed in this external and chronological point,
but who differed toto clo in regard to the essence of the matter.
In fact, the Ebionite party started from the proposition,
that the prescription of Easter in the Old Testament was not
abolished for Christians, and therefore that these ought, like
the Jews, and in the same manner, to eat a paschal lamb in
a solemn feast on the 14th Nisan. This Jewish paschal
banquet was to them the principal thing. But the other
Quartodecimans, regarding the subject in a Christian light,
maintained that the ancient paschal feast was abolished—that
the type existed no longer—that what it had prefigured,
namely, the death of the Lamb upon the cross, had been
realized,— and _ that therefore the Christian should celebrate,
not the banquet, but the death of his Lord.!
The difference between these two parties therefore depends
upon the question as to the perpetual obligatory force of the
Mosaic law. The Ebionite Quartodecimans accepted, while
the orthodox denied this perpetuity ; and consequently the latter
celebrated not the Jewish passover, but the day of the death
of Christ. Both parties appealed to the Bible. The Ebionites
said: Christ Himself celebrated the passover on the 14th
Nisan ; Christians, then, ought to celebrate it on that day, and
in the same way. The orthodox Quartodecimans maintained,
on the contrary, that Christ had not eaten the passover in
the last year of His earthly life, but that He was crucified
on the 14th Nisan, before the time of the paschal feast com-
menced ; and that thus the 14th Nisan is the anniversary,
not of the feast of the passover, but of the death of Christ.’
Eusebius® asserts that Asia was the home of the Quarto-
deciman party. But it is not quite clear what he means by
Asia ; since the word signifies sometimes a quarter of the
1Cf. Chrcnicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, in the Collection of the Byzantines,
Bonn, i. 10; and Weitzel, lc. S. 21.
2 Cf. Fragments of S. Hippoly tus, in the Chronicon Desthage ed. Dindorf,
i, 12; and Weitzel, S. 65 f.
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24.
U
$06. _ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
world, sometimes Asia Minor, sometimes only a portion of the
latter! Asia Proconsularis, of which Ephesus was the capital.
Eusebius has not ‘here taken the word Asia in any of these
three acceptations: for (a) the Quartodeciman party had not
its home either in the whole of Asia Minor or the whole of
Asia, since, as Eusebius himself says,” Pontus (in Asia Minor),
Palestine, and Osrhoéne followed another practice; and, on
the other side, (8) it was not confined to proconsular Asia,
for we find it also in Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, as S.
Athanasius testifies. 5. Chrysostom says even, that formerly
it prevailed also at Antioch.*
But Eusebius points out his meaning more clearly in the
following chapter,? where he classes among the Quartodeci-
mans the Churches of Asia (proconsular), “ and the neighbour-
ing provinces.” We shall see later, that there were amongst
these Quartodecimans in Asia Minor, not only orthodox, but
Ebionites, particularly at Laodicea. If the Quartodecimans in
general formed a minority among Christians,’ the Ebionites,
as it appears, formed but a small group in this minority.
The great majority of Christians regulated the festival of
Easter according to the day of the week, so that the resurrec-
tion might always be celebrated on a Sunday, and the death
of Christ always on a Friday. According to Eusebius, this
mode of celebration of the Easter festival “was observed by
all other Churches throughout the whole world, with the ex-
ception of Asia ;’7 and he particularly mentions Palestine,
Rome, Pontus, France, Osrhoéne, Corinth, Pheenicia, and Alex-
andria.® The Emperor Constantine the Great affirms that “all
the Churches of the West, the South, and the North, had
adopted this practice, particularly tome, the whole of Italy,
Africa, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, Achaia (Greece) ;
1 See Trench, Notes on the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia.—Ep.
2 Euseb. v. 29.
3 Ad Afros. Epist. c. 2, t. i. P. ii. p. 718, ed. Bened. Patav. 1777. Constan-
tine the Great says in Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 19, that Cilicia followed the prac-
tice of the West.
4 Oratio in eos qui pascha jejunant (Opp. ed. BB. t. i. p. 608, n. 3).
5 Euseb. v. 24. 6 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 19; Hist. Eccl. v. 23.
7 Vita Const. iii. 19 ; Hist. Eccl. v. 23.
8 Hist. Ecc}. v. 28, 25.
NiCZA; DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION, 307
it had even been adopted in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and
Cilicia.” This can be only partially true of Cilicia and Asia
Minor ; for the latter was quite the seat of the Quartodeci-
mans, and §. Athanasius distinctly classes Cilicia amongst
the Quartodeciman provinces.”
It follows from what has been said, that it is not quite
correct to call the practice of those who regulated Easter
according to the day of the week the Western practice; for a
great number of the Eastern provinces also adopted this plan.
It might rather be called the common or predominant use :
whilst the Quartodeciman custom, which was based on a
Jewish theory, should be called the Ebionite ; and the second
Quartodeciman custom, which rested upon a Christian basis,
may be called the Johannean. The orthodox Quartodeci-
mans, indeed, specially appealed to §. John the evangelist,
and partly to the Apostle S. Philip, as we see from the letter
of their head, Polycrates of Ephesus ;? and they affirmed that
these two'great authorities had always celebrated Easter on
the 14th Nisan. But the Western or ordinary usage was also
based upon the apostolical authority of the prince-apostles
SS. Peter and Paul, who, according to them, had introduced
this custom.’
Besides, all parties preserved the expression of the feast of
the passover given in the Old Testament, although it only
recalled particularly the passing of the destroying angel over
the dwellings of the Israelites ; for NDS, from D8, signifies
passing over.’ In a more general way this word signifies the
deliverance from Egypt; and in this sense it might have been
employed figuratively by Christians, as their feast of deliver-
ance from Egypt. The Aramaic 87D (Pascha) prevailed along
with the Hebrew form DB (Pesach), and more widely than
this; and thus many Gentile Christians, who were unac-
quainted with Hebrew, were easily led to derive the word
Pascha from the Greek verb πάσχειν.
Sometimes by the word Pascha was signified the whole week
of the Passion, sometimes the days which they celebrated dur-
1 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 19.
3 Athan. Ep. ad Afros, c. 2. 8 Euseb. ν. 24.
“Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 28 ; Socrat. Hist, Eccl. v. 22. ΕΝ, xii, 21, 27.
308 HISTORY OF ΤΠῈ COUNCILS.
ing that week, or even a particular day in it, especially that
of our Lord’s death. Tertullian, for instance, in his book de
Jejunio; calls the whole week Pascha, but in his work de
Oratione® only Good Friday. Constantine the Great, in the
same way, speaks sometimes of one day, sometimes of several
days, in Easter week.’ He seems also particularly to signify
by the word Easter the day of the death of Christ ; neverthe-
less he calls the day of the resurrection not only ἡμέρα ava-
στάσεως, but also πάσχα, as may be seen from the whole tenor
of the passage in Eusebius,’ and from several others quoted by
Suicer.® Basil the Great, for instance, in his Lzhortatio ad
Baptismum; identifies the. ἡμέρα τοῦ πάσχα with the μνημό-
cuvov (day of commemoration) τῆς ἀναστάσεως" Subsequently,
from what period is uncertain, in order to make a distinction,
they call the day of the death πάσχα σταυρώσιμον (passover
of crucifixion), and the day of the resurrection πάσχα ava-
στάσιμον" (passover of resurrection).
It is clear from a passage in Tertullian,” that the uni-
versal custom of the ancient Church was to celebrate Easter
for a whole week. 85. Epiphanius says still more plainly,”
“The Catholic Church celebrates not only the 14th Nisan,
but the whole week ;” and as he certainly emphasized this
in opposition to the Quartodecimans, we may presume that
the Ebionite Quartodecimans celebrated only the 14th of
Nisan as the feast of the passover; that at least the other
days were thrown into the shade relatively to this principal
feast, which was quite in accordance with their Jewish ten-
dency. The observance of the Mosaic prescription respecting
the paschal feast seemed to them far more important than
the celebration of the days of the death and resurrection of
our Lord.
Although there was a notable difference in the three ways
of keeping Easter, the antagonism between the Johannean
and the ordinary custom was first noticed; but the higher
10,14, 2C. 14. 3 In Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 18.
_ 4 Euseb. Hist. Eecl. v. 23. 5 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 23.
6 Suiceri Thesaurus 6 Patribus Grecis, ii. 622, i. 804.
7 Basil. Orat. xiii. % Suic. lc. 1. 804.
9 Suic. Uc 11. 621 sq., i. 304 10 Tertull. de Jejun c. 14
M Epiphan, Heres. 50.2.
NICAA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 309
unity in the spirit and in the essence of the subject made the
chronological difference seem less striking and more tolerable.
S. Irenceus gives a proof of this when he distinctly says, in a
fragment of the synodical letter which he wrote in the name
of the Gallican bishops, “ that the Roman bishops before Soter,
namely Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus (the
latter was living at the beginning of the second century), did
not follow the Asiatic custom, nor did they tolerate it amongst
their people, but that nevertheless they lived amicably with
those who came to Rome from countries where a contrary
practice prevailed ; and they even sent the holy Eucharist,
in token of unity, to the Quartodeciman bishops of those
Churches.” ἢ
The first known debate respecting this difference, and the
first attempt made at the same time to put an end to it, took
place when 8. Polycarp went to Rome to see Pope Anicetus,
towards the middle of the second century.” We cannot de-
termine exactly in what year this took place. Baronius de-
clares, but with insufficient reason, for the fifth year of Marcus
Aurelius, 167 years after Christ.’ But Polycarp was so
advanced in years at this time, that it is difficult to believe he
could have undertaken so long a journey ; besides, Anicetus
had then been in the see of Rome for ten years, and conse-
quently Polycarp might well have visited him before. How-
ever, Polycarp went to Rome, and not about the Easter business,
as Baronius concludes from an incorrect translation of Euse-
bius, but about some other slight differences which he wished
to compose in concert with Anicetus.” He was certainly
the most worthy representative of the Johannean or Asiatic
opinions, being recognised as the most distinguished bishop of
Asia Minor, and certainly the only disciple of S. John then
living. We may suppose that he followed the Johannean
practice with regard to the celebration of Easter, not only from
the fact that he was Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, but
ΣΤ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vy. 24. It was the custom in the primitive Church
to send the holy Eucharist at Easter to friendly bishops ; but the fourteenth
canon of the Synod of Laodicea forbid this practice.
5 Euseb. Hist. Heel. v. 24. 3 Baron. ad ann. 167, n. 8 sq.
4 alesii Annet. in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ἘΠῚ 5 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lc,
410: HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
also from this, that Polycrates of Ephesus, the ardent defender:
of the Johannean custom, pian sary appealed to Polycarp.
in his struggle with Pope Victor.’ Polycarp and Anicetus'
received bach other with the kiss of peace, and held a con-
ference on the subject of Easter, which did not however last.
long, Anicetus being unable to induce Polycarp to abandon a
practice which the latter “ had observed in communion with
the Evangelist S. John.” Neither would Anicetus abandon
the custom pursued by his predecessors in the episcopate. In
spite of this difference they lived in communion, and Anicetus
conferred what was then a very special mark of distinction
upon his host, allowing him to celebrate the holy Eucharist in
his church and in his presence. After that they separated in:
peace, and the same feeling continued between the two parties
whom they represented.?
Some years after Polycarp’s journey we meet with the
first known movements of the Ebionite Quartodecimans.
Melito Bishop of Sardes relates, in a fragment of his work
(two books, περὶ τοῦ πάσχα), that “when Servilius Paulus’
was Proconsul of Asia, and Sagaris Bishop of Laodicea had
suffered martyrdom,* a warm controversy arose at Laodicea on
the subject of Easter.” The time in which Melito flourished
was probably about the year 170. This fragment does not
specify the particular point upon which the controversy
turned, but we learn that from another source. Apollinaris
of Hierapolis, a contemporary, a friend, and a compatriot of
Melito, whose opinions also he held, likewise wrote a work
upon Easter; and the two fragments which have been pre-
served in the Chronicon Puschale assert—(1) “Those are
mistaken who hold that our Lord ate the paschal lamb with
His disciples upon the 14th Nisan, and that He died upon
the great day of unleavened bread (the 15th Nisan). They
pretend that S. Matthew affirms it; but such an opinion is:
not accordant with the (ancient) law, and the Gospels (espe-
cially those of S. Matthew and 8. John) would thus be con-
tradictory” The second fragment says: “The 14th. Nisan.
1 Euseb. l.¢.
2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. ΟἹ, Valesius’ notes upon this passage.
* Euseb. 10. 26. 4 Cf. Euseb., Hist. Eccl. v. 24.
NICZA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 311
is the true passover of our Lord, the great Sacrifice ; instead
of the lamb, we have here the Lamb of God,’ etc.'
By these fragments we see that Apollinaris belonged to
those Christians who held that our Lord did not partake of
the passover the last year of His life, but that He was cruci-
fied upon the 14th Nisan. Thus the immolation of the lamb,
the type, was realized by the death of the Lamb upon the
cross upon the same 14th of Nisan, in the week of the
Passion. The type was then abolished, and the commemora-
tion of the death of Christ replaced the Jewish (ιδ΄) feast.
He holds that by admitting this theory the evangelists can
be harmonized, and that an exact parallelism was established
between the facts of the New and the types of the Old Testa-
ment.” According to the opposite opinion, however, (1) the
evangelists are not agreed; and (2) that opinion does not
agree with the ancient law. It is not said why, but we may
conclude from his words that the following was implied: “ If
Christ had eaten the paschal lamb upon the 14th Nisan, His
death should have taken place upon the 15th Nisan, whilst
the type of this death was only upon the 14th; and con-
sequently the resurrection falls upon the 17th ae whilst
the type occurs upon the 16th.”
The proximity of Hierapolis and of Thdiliesn; and the fact
that Melito and Apollinaris lived at the same time, sanction
the presumption that the party attacked by the latter was
identical with that of Laodicea, and which Melito attacked ;
and as Apollinaris and Melito were associated as apologists
and lights of their time, they were also certainly associated
in the Easter controversy. Apollinaris was, as his fragments
prove, a Johannean Quartodeciman; and Melito was the
same, for Polycrates expressly appeals to him.®
But against whom did Apollinaris write, and what was
ΠῚ Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf (in the Byzantine Collection), 418. ΘΝ
Weitzel, lc. S, 22 ff,
2 Op TESTAMENT. New TESTAMENT.
14th Nisan, . . ~. Immolation of the Immolation of the
paschal lamb. _ Lamb of God.
16th Nisan, . . . Offering of the First-fruits of the
- first-fruits, resurrection,
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24.
$132 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the character of the party against whom he and Melito con-
tended? Apollinaris does not enter into detail upon this
point: he simply indicates, in the first extract, that his
opponents celebrated the paschal feast upon the 14th Nisan.
They were therefore Quartodecimans; but as he was of that
class himself, we must seek elsewhere for the special character
of his adversaries; and as in the second extract he stronely
insists upon the 14th Nisan “being the true passover of the
Lord, the great sacrifice wherein the Son of God was immo-
lated instead of the Jewish lamb,” we may conclude natu-
rally enough that his adversaries were Ebionite Quartodeci-
mans, who also celebrated, it is true, the 14th Nisan, but in
a Jewish manner, with the feast of the passover.’ This is
made still more evident by an extract from Hippolytus, of
which we shall have to speak hereafter. Moreover, the work
of Melito determined Clement of Alexandria to write a λόγος
περὶ τοῦ πάσχα, not indeed to refute it, but to complete
Melito’s work. Of this work of Clement’s we have only
fragments preserved in the Chronicon Paschale,? and the first
of these fragments says: “Christ always ate the paschal
lamb with His disciples in His earlier years, but not in the
last year of His life, in which He was Himself the Lamb
immolated upon the cross.” The second fragment has the
words: “Christ died on the 14th of Nisan; and after His
death, on the evening of the same day, the Jews celebrated
their passover feast.”®
Clement here quite agrees with Apollinaris, and his work
proves that the same party which Apollinaris opposed still
existed after the lapse of many years.
After some time, 8. Hippolytus attacked them: in two
fragments, both preserved in the Chronicon Paschale.* He
distinctly says: “The controversy still lasts, for some errone-
ously maintain that Christ ate the passover before His death,
and that consequently we ought to do so also. But Christ, when
He suffered, no longer ate the legal passover; for He was
Himself the passover, previously announced, which was on
that day.fulfilled in Him.” This fragment by Hippolytus 1s
1Cf. Weitzel, S. 16-59. 2 Ohronicon Paschale, l.c. p. 14.
3 Cf. Weitzel, Uc. 5. 18, 60 ἢ ‘11200
NICHA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 313
taken from his work against the heresies,’ and consequently
from that time the Ebionite Quartodecimans were rightly con-
sidered as heretics. He says again, in the second fragment of
his work upon Easter: “ Christ did not partake of the pass-
over before His death; He would not have had time for it.”?
We need not wonder that an Italian bishop like Hippo-
lytus should have thought it necessary to oppose the Ebionite
party ; for it was not restricted to Phrygia (Laodicea) and the
other countries of Asia Minor, but it had found defenders
even at Rome, and Hippolytus was a priest of the Roman
Church—he was even for some time a schismatical Bishop of
tome.? Eusebius‘ indeed says: “ Several sects arose in Rome
in the time of the Montanists, of which one had for its chief
the priest Florinus, another Blastus.’ He does not tell us
their doctrine, but says that Florinus was deposed, and that
both of them had seduced many of the faithful. He adds:’
Irenzeus wrote against Florinus a book called de Monarchia,
and against Blastus another, de Schismate; but again he does
not mention the doctrine taught by Blastus. We have no
more account. of it than is contained in the apocryphal
supplement to Tertullian’s book de Prescriptione, where it
is said, in the fifty-third chapter: Lst preterea his omnibus
(to Marcion, to Tatian, etc.) etiam Blastus accedens, qui la-
tenter Sudaismum vult introducere. According to this text,
Blastus was a Judaizer, having tendencies analogous to those
of the Ebionite Quartodecimans of Asia Minor (especially of
Laodicea’). If Blastus, towards 180, tried. to introduce the
Ebionite Quartodecimanism into Italy, and even into Rome,
the aversion of Pope Victor towards the Quartodecimans in
general can be easily explained, and his earnestness in his
controversy with Polycrates and the Asiatics.
δον εἰν; ἁπάσα: τὰς αἱρέσεις, asthe Chron. Pasch. says. That is the σύνταγμα
ward αἱρίστων ; and Doéllinger shows that this is not identical with the newly
discovered φιλοσοφούμενα (Iippol. and Call. S. 7 ff.).
2 Cf. Weitzel, lc. S. 66 f.
3 Cf. Dillinger, Hippolytus u. Callistus, S. 100 f.
*Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ν. 15. * ic. 6.. 20,
“ Cf. the note‘of Rigaltius on ¢. 45.
? Weitzel forcibly proves (S. 87), against Gieseler and Schw egler, that Blastes
was no Montanist.
314 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
We thus reach the sccond period of the Paschal conttos
versy. In the first, we have seen the two customs of the
Church—the Johannean custom, and the usual one—existing
side by side, each of these opposing only the Ebionite party.
Now, on the contrary, the two purely Christian opinions are
to be found in violent conflict. It was probably Pope Victor
who was the cause of the struggle: the intrigues of Blastus
doubtless resulted in setting him against the Quartodecimans,
and leading him to forbid the celebration of the feast on the
14th Nisan. In 196, 8. Jerome’s Chronicle says that he
wrote to the most eminent bishops of every country, asking
them to assemble synods in their provinces, and by their
means to introduce the Western mode of celebrating Easter.
These letters—for example, those to Polycrates of Ephesus
—also contained threats in case of resistance.’ Numerous
synods therefore assembled, as we learn from Eusebius ;? and
all, with the exception of those of Asia Minor, unanimously
declared “ that it was a rule of the Church to celebrate the
mystery of the resurrection only on a Sunday.” They ac-
quainted all the faithful with this declaration by synodical
letters.’ Eusebius* saw several of these synodical letters,
especially those from the Synods of Palestine, presided over
by Theophilus Bishop of Czesarea and Narcissus of Jeru-
salem ; also those from the bishops of Pontus, under Palma ;
from the bishops of Gaul, under Irenzeus; from the bishops
of Osrhoéne; and, finally, the private letter from Bacchylus
Bishop of Corinth.? They unanimously pronounced in favour
of Victor’s opinion, except Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus.
The latter had also been president of a synod composed of a
great number of the bishops of his province, He said that
all approved of the remarkable letter which he proposed to
send to Pope Victor, which Eusebius has preserved.® In this
letter he says, “We celebrate the true day, without adding
or subtracting anything ;” and he appeals, in justification of
his practice, as we have before seen, to the Apostle Philip,
who died at Hierapolis, to S. John the Evangelist, to Poly-
1 Cf. the answer of Polycrates to Victor, in Euseb, Hist. Eccl. v. 24.
᾿ * Euseb, ν. 298,, 3 See above, upon these synods, sec. 2, and following.
# Euseb. lc 5 See above, the same section, 6 Euseb. v. 24.
NICEA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION, 315:
earp, and others, who all kept Easter on the fourteenth day
after the new moon. Seven of his own relations had been
bishops of Ephesus before him, and had observed the same
custom. “As he had attained the age of sixty-five years,
Polycrates no longer feared any threatening, he said, for he
knew that we ought to obey God rather than men.” ὦ
Thereupon, says Eusebius, continuing his account, Pope
Victor tried to excommunicate (ἀποτέμνειν πειρᾶται) the
Churches of Asia and of the neighbouring provinces ; and he
addressed an encyclical letter to this effect to all the Chris-
tians of those countries. The words of Eusebius might also
be understood to mean that Victor really launched a sentence
of excommunication against these Churches, and they have
been taken in this sense by the later Church historian So-
crates ;? but it is more correct to say, as Valesius has shown?
that the Pope thought of excommunicating the Asiatics, and
that he was kept from carrying out the sentence especially
by S. Irenzeus. Eusebius says, indeed,“ He tried to excom-
municate them.” He adds: “This disposition of Victor did
not please other bishops, who exhorted him :rather to seek
after peace. The Ilctters in which they blame him are still
extant.” However, Eusebius gives only the letter of S.
Irenzeus, who, although born in Asia Minor, declared that
the resurrection of the Saviour ought to be celebrated on a
Sunday; but also exhorted Victor not to cut off from com-
munion a whole group of Churches which only observed an
ancient custom. He reminds him that his predecessors had
judged this difference with much more leniency, and that, in
particular, Pope Anicetus had — 4 it amicably with
Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna.‘
Eusebius here remarks, that Irenzus, as his name indicates,
had become εἰρηνοποῖος, and that he addressed letters on this
occasion, not only to Victor, but to other bishops.°
Thus this debate did not bring about the uniformity which
1 See above, same section. 2 Socrat. v. 22.
* In his remarks upon Euseb. v. 24.
. *See above, at.the. commencement of this section.
“Cf. Teller, Pars actorum inter Asiaticas et £49 tape Ecclesias tena conto
verso sacrorum Paschatos tempore, Helmst. 1767. ‘
216 ri HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.’ -
Victor desired. However, as a consequence of these explana-
tions and negotiations, some Churches of Asia, it appears,
renounced their custom, and adopted that of the West, as
Massuet* and Valesius” have concluded from the letter pub-
lished by Constantine after the close of the Synod of Niczea,
in which he says; “ Asia” (doubtless meaning some of its
Churches), “ Pontus, and Cilicia have adopted the universal
custom.” * This can apply only to a part of Cilicia, seeing
that, according to the testimony of S. Athanasius, the custom
of the Quartodecimans prevailed there* Thus up to this
time the controversy bore only upon these two points: 1st,
Was the festival to be held according to the day of the week,
or that of the month? 2d, When was the fast to cease ?
But in the third century, which we have now reached, a
fresh difficulty arose to complicate the debate, which we may
call briefly the astronomical difficulty.
We have seen that with the Asiatics, as with the Westerns,
Easter was determined by the 14th Nisan, with this differ-
ence only, that the Asiatics always celebrated Easter on this
day, whilst the Westerns kept it on the Sunday following
(with them the Sunday of the resurrection was their greatest
festival). But then this question arose: On what precise
day of the year does the 14th Nisan fall? or how can the
lunar date of the 14th Nisan be reconciled with the solar
year ? The Jews’ ecclesiastical year, the first month of which
is called Nisan, commences in the spring. At the beginning
of spring, and particularly towards the equinox, barley is
ripe in Palestine. For this reason the month Nisan is also
called the month of sheaves; and the great festival of the
month Nisan, the passover, is at the same time the feast
of harvest, in which the first sheaf of barley is offered to
God as first-fruits.? According to this, the 14th Nisan comes
almost at the same time with the full moon after the vernal
equinox ; and although the lunar year of the Jews is shorter
1 Opp. S. Ireuseus, vol. ii. p. 73, n. 19.
2 In his observations upon Euseb. v. 23. ' 8 Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 19.
4 Athanas. Lp. ad Afros, c. 2; and de synodis Arimin. et Seleuc. c. 5, oe
ed. Bened; Patav. t. i. P. ii. pp. 574, 713. Cf. above, p. 806.
® Ideler, ‘Handbuc' der Chrenologie, Bd. i. S. 486, 487, 490
NIC4a: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 317
than the solar year, they made up the difference by an inter-
calary month, so that the 14th-Nisan always occurred at the
same period.’ It was also partly determined by the ripeness
of the barley. |
Many Fathers of the Church relied especially on the fact
that the passover had always been kept by the ancient
Hebrews, and by the contemporaries of our Saviour, after the
equinox,” and so ordered that the festival should continue
to be celebrated after the commencement of the spring. They
remarked that the Jews had always determined the 2d in
this way until the fall of Jerusalem. The defective practice
of not fixing the ἐδ΄ according to the equinox was not intro-
duced among them until after that event.
We may see clearly what resulted from this rule. Who-
ever observed it, could no longer regulate his Easter according
to the 14th Nisan of the Jews, inasmuch as this day occurred
after the equinox. If the 14th fell before the equinox with
the Jews, the Christians ought to have said: “The Jews
this year celebrate the 14th Nisan at a wrong date, a month
too soon: it is not the full moon before, but the full moon
after the equinox, which is the true full moon of Nisan.”
We say full moon, for the 14th Nisan was always necessarily
at the full moon, since each month among the Jews began
with the new moon. In this case the Christians kept their
Easter a month later than the Jews, and determined it ac-
cording to the full moon after the vernal equinox.. Hence
it resulted —
1, That if a Johannean Quartodeciman® acted according to
the equinox, he always celebrated his Easter exactly on the
day of the full moon after the equinox, without minding on
what day of the week it fell, or whether it coincided with
the Jewish 14th of Nisan or not.
2. That if a Western acted also according to the equinox,
he always celebrated his Easter on the Sunday after the full
moon which followed the vernal equinox. If the full moon
1 Tdeler, 1.6. Bd. i. S. 488-490.
5 Ideler, U.c. Bd. ii. S. 229; Weitzel, U.c. 208, 224.
~* The Ebionite Quartodecimans acted entirely according to the Jewish man-
ner of computation at this period.
318 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
fell on. a Sunday, he kept the festival not on that Sunday,
but on the following one, and that because the day of the
resurrection (consequently his Easter) ought. to be observed
not on the very day of the 16° (being the day of Christ's
death), but after the 1d’.
We shall presently see that the latter manner of computa-
tion for regulating the celebration of the Easter festival was
adopted by many, if not all, in the West; but we cannot deter-
mine whether many of the Asiatics did the same. The seventh
(eighth) of the so-called Apostolic Canons, besides, ordered
Easter to be celebrated universally after the vernal equinox.
When abandoning the way of Jewish. computation, the
Christians had naturally much more difficulty in determining
the period of their Easter. It was necessary to make special
calculations in order to know when Easter would fall; and
the most ancient known calculation on this point is that of
Hippolytus, a disciple of S. Irenzus, who was erroneously
called Bishop of Pontus, but who was in fact a Roman priest
at the commencement of the third century, and was opposition
Bishop of Rome about the year 220 to 235.1. Eusebius? says
of him, that in his book upon Easter he makes a computa-
tion, and bases it upon a canon of sixteen years. Nothing»
more was known of this calculation or canon until in 1551,
on the way to Tivoli, not far from the Church of 8. Lawrence,
there was discovered a marble statue of a bishop seated on
his throne. It is at present in the Vatican Museum. It was
recognised as the statue of Hippolytus, because a catalogue
of the works of the bishop represented was inscribed upon
che back of the throne. Upon the right side of the throne
is a table of the Easter full moons, calculated for a period of
a hundred and twelve years (from 222 to 333 after Christ).
Upon the left side is a table of the Easter Sundays for the
same period, and the calculation for both tables is based upon
the cycle of sixteen years mentioned by Eusebius: so: that.
according to this calculation, after sixteen years, the Easter full
moon falls on the same day of the month, and not of the week ;
and after a hundred and twelve years it falls regularly on the
same day of the month, and of the week also. Ideler justly
1 Photii Biblioth, cod. 121; Déllinger, Uc. S, 249. 2 Euseb. vi. 22.
Ὁ
NICZA : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION, 919
remarks that Hippolytus might have abridged his calculation
one half, since according to it the full moon fell every eight
years on the same day of the month, and that every fifty-six
years it fell again on the same day of the month and of the
week also.
This point being settled, Hippolytus lays down the follow-
ing principles :—
ἄς The fast should not cease till the Sunday. This is
expressly said in the inscription on the first table (engraven
on the right side of the throne).’
2. It is thence established that it is the Sunday which
gives the rule, that the communion feast must then be cele-
brated, and the day of Christ’s death on the Friday,
3. As Hippolytus always places the 1d’ after the 18th
March, doubtless he considered the 18th March as the
equinox, and this day formed the basis of his Easter calcula-
tions.
4, If the 8’ fell on a Friday, he would keep Good Friday
on that day. If the 1d fell on a Saturday, he would not
keep Easter on the following day, but put it off for a week
(as occurred in the year 222). In the same way, if the 1d’
fell on a Sunday, it was not that day, but the following Sun-
day, which was his Easter day (for example, in 227).
As Hippolytus was a disciple of 8. Ireneus, and one of
the principal doctors of the Church of Rome, we may con-
sider his Easter calculation as exactly expressing the opinion
of the Westerns, and especially of the Church of Rome, on
the subject.
The Church of Alexandria also did not celebrate Easter
until after the equinox. The great Bishop Dionysius ex-
pressly says so in an Easter letter, now lost, which is men-
tioned by Eusebius.’ According to him, Dionysius must also
have published an Easter canon for eight years. At Alex-
andria, the city of astronomers, it would, besides, have been
easy for Bishop Dionysius to make a more exact computation
than that of Hippolytus, who had settled the question satis-
factorily for only a certain number of years.*
1 Tdeler, 1.6, Bd. ii. S. 222. 2 Cf. Weitzel, 1.6. S. 200. 3 Euseb. vii. 20,
“Ideler, Handd, der Chron. ii. 224 and 226,
320 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
But Dionysius was in his turn surpassed by another Alex-
andrian—Anatolius Bishop of Laodicea in Syria since 270,
who wrote a work upon the feast of Easter! a fragment of
which has been preserved by Eusebius.? He discovered the
Easter cycle of nineteen years, and began it with the year
277, probably because in that year his calculation was
established.
1. Anatolius proceeds upon the principle that the ancient
Jews did not celebrate the passover until after the equinox,
and that consequently the Christian’s Easter ought never to
be kept until after the vernal equinox.
2. He considers the 19th March as the® equinox,
3. He says nothing about the old question relating to the
fast, and the time when it should close; but evidently, as
he was an Alexandrian, he followed the usual custom (and
not that of Asia),
This cycle of nineteen years was soon subjected to different
modifications, after which it was generally adopted in Alex-
andria from the time of Diocletian. .The chief modification
was, that the Alexandrians placed the equinox not on the 19th,
but on the 21st March, which was tolerably exact for that
period. Besides, when the sé’ fell on a Saturday, they de-
parted from the systems of Anatolius and Hippolytus, and
celebrated Easter on the following day, as we do πον. The
completion of this cycle of nineteen years is attributed to
Eusebius of Ceesarea.?
Such was the state of the question at the commencement
of the fourth century. It shows us that the differences in the
time for the celebration of Easter were at that time greater
than ever.
The introduction of the question about the equinox had
added fresh differences to the three former ones, Not only
did some of the Asiatics® continue the Jewish calculation
then in use, so that their Easter might fall before the equinox ;
1 Euseb. vii. 32, 38,
ἡ Cf. Ideler, 1.6. ii. 227 ff., and the annotations (chiefly erroneous) by Petas
vius on Epiph. Heres, 51, vol. ii. p. 188 544.
8. Tdeler, ii. 228, : 4 Ideler, ii. 220, 234.
δ Ideler, 11. 232. 6 Weitzel, l.c. 236.
NIC.EA : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 32%
but some of the Westerns, not consulting the last astrono-
mical calculations, also celebrated their Easter before the
equinox.
The Quartodecimans, as well as those among the Westerns
who did not consider the equinox at all, often celebrated
Easter earlier than the rest of Christendom, and therefore
called themselves Protopaschites. But also among the Equi-
noctialists themselves there existed some difference: for the
Alexandrians calculated Easter according to the cycle of nine-
teen years, and took the 21st March as the date of the equinox ;
whilst the Romans, as they followed Hippolytus, observed the
cycle of sixteen years (subsequently that of eighty-four years),
and placed the equinox on the 18th March. When the full
moon occurred on the 19th March, it was considered by the
Latins the Easter full moon, and they celebrated their festival
on the following Sunday; whilst with the Alexandrians this
full moon was before the equinox, and consequently they
waited for another full moon, and celebrated their Easter a
month after the day considered right by the Latins.
These serious and numerous differences were indeed very
lamentable, and were the cause of many disputes and frequent
troubles in countries where these different modes simulta-
neously existed. They often made the Christians an object of
the most bitter ridicule on the part of the heathen.? Indeed,
the Council of Arles perfectly responded to the exigencies of
the times, when in 314 it endeavoured to establish unanimity
upon this question. This Synod commanded in its very first
canon, that henceforth Easter should be celebrated wno die et
uno tempore per omnem orbem, and that, according to custom,
the Pope should send letters everywhere on this subject.’
The Synod therefore wished to make the Roman mode pre-
dominant, and to suppress every other, even the Alexandrian
(supposing that the difference between the Alexandrian and
the Roman calculation was known to the bishops at Arles).
But the ordinances of Arles were not accepted everywhere,
and they failed to establish uniformity in the Church. The
decision of an cecumenical council became necessary ; and, in
1 Tdeler, ἴ.6. ii. 247, 252. 2 Epiph. Heres. 70.14; Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 5.
8 Mansi, Collect. Cone. ii. 471; Hard. i. 263. See above, p. 184.
x
322 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
fact, the first GEcumenical Council of Nica was occupied with |
this business. We are ignorant of the detailed debates on
this subject, knowing only the result as we find it in the
encyclical letter of the Council,’ and in the Emperor’s circular.’
In the former document, the Council thus addresses the
Church of Alexandria, and its well-beloved brethren in Egypt,
Libya, and Pentapolis: “We give you good news of the unity
which has been established respecting the holy passover. In
fact, according to your desire, we have happily elucidated this
business. All the brethren in the East who formerly cele-
brated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at the
same time as the Romans, with us, and with all those who
from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time
with πι5. ὃ
The Emperor Constantine made the following announce-
ment in his letter to all who were not present at the Council :
“ When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter
arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient
that all should keep the feast. on one day; for what could be
more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival,
through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated
by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It was
declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of
all festivals, to follow the custom (the calculation) of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of
crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their
custom, we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate
mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the
time of the Saviour’s Passion to the present day (according to
the day of the week). We ought not therefore to have any-
thing in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown
us another way: our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course (the order of the days of the week) ;
and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we
1 Socrates, Hist. Eccles. i. 9.
2 Socrates, l.c. ; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 10; Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 17.
3 Socrates, i. 9.
We must read ἔῤους, not ἔῤνους, as the Mainz impression of the edition of
Valerius has it.
KICZA!: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION, 323°
desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detest-
able company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to
hear them boast that without their direction we could not.
keep this feast. How can they be in the right—they who,
after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by
reason, but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge
them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question ;
for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements,
they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year."
We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How,
then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly
blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it
would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by com-
munications with such wicked people (the Jews). Besides,
consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a
subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any
division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our
redemption, that is to say, of His holy passion, and. He desired
(to establish) only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how
unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting,
whilst others are seated at a banquet ;? and that after Easter,
some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still ob-
serving a strict fast.? For this reason, Divine Providence
’ 1 When the ιδ΄ fell before the equinox, the Jews kept the passover also before
the equinox ; but as the new solar year had not then commenced, the Jews had
celebrated two passovers in the course of one solar year (from one spring to
another).
? Supposing the δ΄ fell on a Friday, the Ebionite Quartodeciman celebrated
the feast of the passover on that day, but the Catholics regarded the day as a
rigorous fast. But even among the orthodox it was possible that some should
be fasting while others were feasting. The Johannean Quartodecimans (see
above, p. 313) finished their fast on the «δ΄ at midnight, and thus it might be on
Thursday, whilst the Westerns continued their fast till Sunday. Finally, the
Westerns, or followers of the ordinary custom, were not at one among themselves,
Those, for instance, as the Protopaschites, who paid no regard to the equinox,
or who placed it on a wrong day, might have (as we have seen, Ὁ. 321) their
Easter feast and fast about a month earlier than the others, and consequently
were fasting while these were feasting, and their fast was long past when it was
beginning with the others,
3 When, e.g., the Protopaschites had celebrated their Easter, their fast was at
an end, while the Equinoctialists still had their fast. Besides, the Johannean
and Ebionite Quartodecimans ended their fast and had their Easter on the «
944. HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and every one, I hope, will agree upon this
point. As,.on the one hand, it is our duty not to have any-
thing in common with the murderers of our Lord, and as, on
the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the
West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of
the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all,
and I have been guarantee for your consent, that you would
accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all
Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia,and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider
not only that the number of churches in these provinces make
a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our
reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common
with the Jews. To sum up in few words: by the unanimous
judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival
of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the
same day, and it is not seemly that in-so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case,
accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine com-
mand; for all which takes place in assemblies of the bishops
ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God.
Make known to your brethren what has been decreed, keep
this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we can
thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is
eranted me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can
rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use
of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the
devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish
amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved
brethren.” * 3
We find no further details in the acts. But it is easy to
understand that the Fathers of the Council took as the basis
of their decision the computation which was most generally
admitted among orthodox Christians, that is, the one which
regulated the 16’ according to the equinox, and Easter Sunday
and consequently might feast whilst the Westerns continued their fast to the
Sunday. fu.
1 Euseb. Vita Const. iii, 18-20,
NICHA:- DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 325
‘according to the ἐδ, We have a letter of Constantine’s upon
this point, which clearly shows the mind of the Council; for,
according to this letter, the Synod requires, 1st, that Easter day
should always be a Sunday (and therefore decides against the
Quartodecimans) ; and 2d, that it should never be celebrated
at the same time as the feast of the Jews. It results from this
second decision, that according to the Synod, if the cd’ should
fall on a Sunday, Easter was not to be celebrated on that
‘Sunday, but a week later. And this for two reasons: (1)
Because the «6 indicates the day of the Saviour’s death, and
that the festival of the resurrection ought to follow that day,
and not to coincide with it ; (2) because in those years when
the ἐδ΄ should fall on a Sunday, Christians would be celebrat-
ing their Easter at the same time as the Jews, which was what
the Synod wished to avoid. The third decision made at Nicxa
was (3) to forbid Christians to celebrate Easter twice in one
year ; that is to say, that the equinox should be considered in
all calculations about Easter.
In my opinion, there is no doubt that Constantine, in his
letter, which has every appearance of being a synodical letter,
mentioned only the decisions really arrived at by the Council.
This indubitable fact being once admitted, it must certainly
be acknowledged also that the Synod was right in giving
rules for determining Easter day. Perhaps it did not explain
-expressly the principles which formed the basis of the three
decisions given above, but undoubtedly all these decisions
showed them sufficiently. When Ideler maintains! “ that
the rule clearly enunciated in S. Epiphanius? had not been
expressly prescribed by the Council of Nica,” this opinion has
no foundation, unless Ideler plays upon the word expressly ;
for Epiphanius gives, as the basis of his computation, the
same three rules already laid down by the Nicene Council
and in the letter of Constantine——the observation of the
Equinox, placing the ἐδ΄ after the equinox, and placing the
Sunday after the «6. Ideler appears to me to have too easily
accepted the theories in the second book of Christian Walch’s
Decreti Niceeni de Paschale cxplicatio, which are opposed to our
‘Opinions. | ἡ ι
1 [deler, ii. 207, 3 Epiph. Her. 50. 8 and 70. 11.
326 Ἧ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
It may be asked whether the Council intended to give the
preference to the Roman computation, against the Alex-
andrian. Both rested upon the three rules accepted by the
Council; but the Romans considered the 18th March, and
the Alexandrians the 21st March, as the terminus a quo of
the Easter full moon. According to Ideler, our Synod did
not take much notice of this difference, and seemed indeed
to entirely ignore it... The acts of the Council, in fact, do
not show that it knew of this difference. The tenor of Con-
stantine’s letter seems to authorize the opinion expressed by
Ideler. The synodical letter indeed says: “In future, all
shall celebrate Easter with the Romans, with us, and with
all,” ete.;.and Constantine supposes that the manner of cele-
brating Easter among the. Romans and the Egyptians, and
consequently among the Alexandrians, is identical.” How-
ever, the great importance of the Easter question, and the
particular value which it had at the time of the. Nicene
Council, hardly allow it to be supposed that the differences
between the Roman and Alexandrian computations should
not have been known in such a large assemblage of learned
men, among whom were Romans and Alexandrians. It is
much more rational to admit that these differences were well
known, but that they were passed over without much discus-
sion. To act. thus was indeed an absolute necessity, if they
wished to arrive at complete uniformity upon the Easter ques-
tion; and what we are now saying is not a pure hypothesis,
for Cyril of Alexandria says: “ The General Synod has unani-
mously decreed that, since the Church οἵ Alexandria is ex-
perienced in such sciences, she should announce by letter
every year to the Roman Church. the day on which Easter
should be. celebrated, so that the whole Church might then
learn the time for the. festival through. ὁδοί authority.”
(i.e. of the Bishop of Rome),
Pope Leo. I, expresses himself i in the same. a in his letter
A Ideler, ii, 238. τ᾿ ad? Sep showed pp. 323, 324...
3 The Prologus Paschalis of Cyril, in. ἀρὰ ὅμὴ this passage is found, no longer
exists, except in Latin. It was‘ edited by Petavius (Doctrina Tempor. vol. ii.
Append. p. 502) and by Bucherius (Doctrina Tempor. p. 481), and commented
upon by Van der Hagen (Observationes in Prolog. p. 41). Of. Ideler, ii. 258 f,
NICZA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. B27
tto:the Emperor Marcian.. He says: “ Stwduerunt itaque sancts
Patres” (he certainly understands by that the Fathers of
Nicea, though he does not expressly say so) “ occasionem
hujus erroris auferre, omnem hance curam Alexandrino epis-
copo delegantes (quoniam apud Algyptios hujus supputationis
antiquitus tradita esse videbatur peritia), per quem gquotannis
dies preedicte. solemnitatis Sedi apostolice indicaretur, cujyus
scriptis ad. longinquiores LEcclesias indicium generale percur-
vere.’ If Pope Leo is in the right, this text teaches us
two things: (1) That the Synod of Nica gave the prefer-
ence to the Alexandrian computation over the Roman, whilst
the contrary had been decreed at Arles; (2) That the Synod
found a very good way of smoothing difficulties, by ordaining
that. the Alexandrian Church should announce the day for
‘Easter to the Church of. Rome, and that Rome should make
it known to: the whole Church.
Another account taken from 8. Ambrose agrees very well
with what S. Leo says. S. Ambrose tells us, indeed, that
according. to the advice of several. mathematicians, the Synod
of Nicsea adopted the cycle of nineteen years? Now this is
the Alexandrian cycle; and in fact, in charging the Church
of Alexandria to tell the day for Easter every year to the
Church of Rome, it adopted the Alexandrian cycle.’
Dupin therefore took useless trouble when he tried to prove
that the Fathers of Niczea had simply given occasion for the
adoption of this canon*. The. Benedictine editions of: the
works οὗ 8. Ambrose have also weakened the meaning of
the words, of S. Ambrose, by making him say that the Nicene
Fathers had indeed mentioned this cycle, but that they had
not positively ordered it to be used.?
It is rather remarkable that the Synod should not have
placed its decision as to the celebration of the festival of
Easter among.its canons. . None of the canons of the Council,
not even. those of doubtful Βυνμραβρια, treat of this anaes.
Ἶ 1 Bp. 121 (alias 94), ἃ, Baller. i. “1208, εὐὴ
3 Ep. ad Episcopos per Aimiliam. ; Op. ii. 880. Cf, Ideler, ii. 211.
3 Ideler, ii, 212...
. * Dupin, Nontali Bibliotheque des auteurs eccl. ii. 316, ed. Datis 1693.
5 Dionysius the Less expresses uimself like S. Ambrose. Cf. Ideler, ii. 212.
ae
328 ᾿ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Perhaps the Synod wished to conciliate those who were not
ready. to give up immediately the customs of the Quarto-
decimans. It refused to anathematize a practice which had
been handed down from apostolic times in several orthodox
Churches.’
‘The differences in the way of fixing the period of Easter
did not indeed disappear after the Council of Nica. Alex-
andria and Rome could not agree, either because one of the
two Churches neglected to make the calculation for Easter, or
because the other considered it inaccurate. It is a fact, proved
by the ancient Easter table of the Roman Church,’ that the
cycle of eighty-four years continued to be used at Rome as
before. Now this cycle differed in many ways from the
Alexandrian, and did not always agree with it about the
period for Easter. In fact, (a) the Romans used quite another
method from the Alexandrians: they calculated from the epact,
and began from the feria prima of January.’ (8) The Romans
were mistaken in placing the full moon a little too soon;
whilst the Alexandrians placed it a little too late* (y) At
Rome the equinox was supposed to fall on the 18th March ;
whilst the Alexandrians placed it on the 21st March. (δ)
Finally, the Romans differed in this from the Greeks also :
they did not celebrate Easter the next day when the full
moon fell on the Saturday.
Even the year following the Council of Niczea—that is, in
326—as well as in the years 330, 333, 340, 341, 343, the
Latins celebrated Easter on a different day from the Alex-
andrians.° In order to put an end to this misunderstanding,
the Synod of Sardica in 343, as we learn from the newly-
discovered festival letters of S. Athanasius,’ took up again the
question of Easter, and brought the two parties (Alexandrians
and Romans) to regulate, by means. of mutual concessions, a
common day for Easter for the next fifty years.’ This com-
promise, after a few years, was not observed. The troubles
excited by the Arian heresy, and the division which it caused
between the East and the West, prevented the decree of
1 Ideler, ii. 204. 2 Tdeler, ii. 249 ff. 8 ideler, ii, 245 f.
4 Ideler, ii. 240, 277. 5 Ide'er, ii. 253. 6 They are edited by Larsow.
7 Of this again, further on, in the history of the Synod of Sardica.
NICA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION, 329
Sardica from being put into execution; therefore the Emperor
Theodosius the Great, after the re-establishment of peace in
the Church, found himself obliged to take fresh steps for
obtaining a complete uniformity in the manner of celebrating
Easter. In 387, the Romans having kept Easter on the
21st March, the Alexandrians did not do so for five weeks
later—that is to say, till the 25th April—because with the
Alexandrians the equinox was not till the 21st March.
The Emperor Theodosius the Great then asked Theophilus
Bishop of Alexandria for an explanation of the difference.
The bishop responded to the Emperor's desire, and drew up
a chronological table of the Easter festivals, based upon the
principles acknowledged by the Church of Alexandria. Un-
fortunately, we now possess only the prologue of his work.
Upon an invitation from Rome, 8. Ambrose also men-
tioned the period of this same Easter in 387, in his letter to
the bishops of Aimilia, and he sides with the Alexandrian
computation. Cyril of Alexandria abridged the paschal table
of his uncle Theophilus, and fixed the time for the ninety-
five following Easters, that is, from 436. to 531 after Christ.’
Besides this, Cyril showed, in a letter to the Pope, what was
defective in the Latin calculation ; and this demonstration was
taken up again, some time after, by order of the Emperor, by
Paschasinus Bishop of Lilybeeum and Proterius of Alexandria,
in a letter written by them to Pope Leo 1° In consequence
of these communications, Pope Leo often gave the preference
to the Alexandrian computation, instead of that of the Church
of Rome.* At the same time also was generally established,
the opinion so little entertained by the ancient authorities of
‘the Church—one might even say, so strongly in contradiction
to their teaching—that Christ partook of the passover on the
14th Nisan, that He died on the 15th (not on the 14th, as
the ancients considered), that He lay in the grave on the 16th,
and rose again on the 17th. In the letter we have just
mentioned, Proterius of Alexandria openly admitted. all these
different points.
Some years afterwards, in 457, Victor of Aquitaine, by
1 Tdeler, ii. 254, 3 Tdeler, ii. 259, -
8 Ideler, ii. 264-267, 4 Idelzr, ii. 265.
350 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
order of the Roman Archdeacon Hilary, endeavoured to make
the Roman and the Alexandrian calculations agree together.
It has been conjectured that subsequently Hilary, when Pope,
brought Victor's calculation into use, in 456, that is, at the
time when the cycle of eighty-four years came to an end.
In the latter cycle the new moons were marked more accu-
rately, and the chief differences existing between the Latin and
Greek calculations disappeared; so that the Easter of the Latins
generally coincided with that of Alexandria, or was only a
very little removed from it. In cases when the εδ΄ fell on a
Saturday, Victor did not wish to decide whether Easter should
be celebrated the next day, as the Alexandrians did, or should
be postponed for a week. He indicates both dates in his
table, and leaves the Pope to decide what was to be done in
each separate case.? Even after Victor’s calculations, there
still remained great differences in the manner of fixing the
celebration of Easter; and it was Dionysius the Less who first
completely overcame them, by giving to the Latins a paschal
table having as its basis the cycle of nineteen years. This
cycle perfectly corresponded to that of Alexandria, and thus
established that harmony which had been so long sought in
vain. He showed the advantages of his calculation so strongly,
that it was admitted by Rome and by the whole of Italy;’ whilst
almost the whole of Gaul remained faithful to Victor’s canon,
and Great Britain still held the cycle of eighty-four years, a
little improved by Sulpicius Severus. When the Heptarchy
was evangelized by the Roman missionaries, the new converts
accepted the calculation of Dionysius, whilst the ancient
Churches of Wales held fast their old tradition. From this
arose the well-known British dissensions about the celebra-
tion of Easter, which were transplanted by Columban into
Gaul.® In 729, the majority of the ancient British Churches
accepted the cycle of nineteen years.® It had before been
introduced into Spain, immediately after the conversion of
Reccared. Finally, under Charles the Great, the cycle of nine-
1 Tdeler, ii. 284. 3 Tdeler, ii, 283.
3 Ideler, ii. 293. 4 Ideler, ii. 290.
5 See the article Columban in Kirchenlex. by Wetzer and Welte, Bd. it
6 Ideler, ii. 297.
NICIA: DECISION OF THE EASTER: QUESTION, 331
teen years triumphed over all opposition; and thus the whole
of Christendom was united, for the Quartodecimans had era-
dually disappeared.*
Before returning to the Quartodecimans, we will here add
some details for the completion of what has been said on the
Easter question. In ancient times, the entire duration of a
year was calculated erroneously. Thus it happened by degrees,
that the equinox, instead of falling on the 21st March as
announced by the calendar, really fell on the 11th March of
the calendar then in use. The calculations upon the lunar
months also contained many errors. For this reason, in 1582,
Pope Gregory ΧΠΙ. introduced a calendar improved by Alois
Lilius of Calabria, by the Jesuit Clavius, and others. The
improvements of this calendar were: 1st, That the morrow of
the 4th October 1582 was counted as the 15th October, and
the calendar was thus made to agree with astronomical cal-
culations ; 2d, The Easter full moon was calculated much more
accurately than before, and rules were established for the
future prevention of the difficulties which had been previously
experienced. Every fourth year was to be leap year, with the
exception of the secular year (i.e. the year at the end of the
century); yet even in this case, in four secular years, one
was to be leap year. Thus the years 1600 and 2000 are
leap years, whilst the years 1700 and 1800 and 1900 are
not so? —
The Gregorian Calendar from this time came into use in all
Catholic countries. The Greek Church would not admit it.
Protestants ven ἰλρὰ it in 1775, after long hesitation and
much dissension.* In the time of Gregory xm. the difference
between the calendar and the real astronomical year was ten
days ; if this calendar had not been changed, it would have been
eleven days in 1700, and twelve in 1800: for this reason
the Russians with their Julian Calendar are now twelve days
behind us.* But even the Gregorian Calendar itself is ποῦ
1 Tdeler, ii. 298. 2 Tdeler, ii. 303. 3 Ideler, ii, 325.
* With us indeed, the years 1700 and 1800 were not leap years, which they
were according to the Julian Calendar. There are therefore altogether twelve
days of difference between the two calculations. By not counting the years
1700 and 1800 as leap years, an entire agreement has been established between
the Gregorian Calendar and the real astronomical year.
332 ΤΩΣ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
quite exact; for, according to the calculations of Lalande,
which are now generally admitted, the duration of a tropical
year is shorter by 24 seconds than the Gregorian Calendar,
so that after 3600 years it would differ by one day from the
astronomical year." Besides this, the Gregorian Calendar has
not fixed the months with perfect accuracy. A somewhat de-
fective cycle was selected on account of its greater simplicity ;
so that, astronomically speaking, the Easter full moon may
rise two hours after the time calculated by the calendar: thus,
it might be at one o’clock on the Sunday morning, whilst an-
nounced by the calendar for eleven o’clock on Saturday night.
In this case Easter would be celebrated on that same Sunday,
when it ought to be on the following Sunday.
We remark, finally, that the Gregorian Calendar occasionally
makes our Christian Easter coincide with the Jewish passover,
as for instance in 1825.7 This coincidence is entirely con-
trary to the spirit of the Nicene Council; but it is impossible
to avoid it, without violating the rule for finding Easter which
is now universally adopted.
Sec. 38. The later Quartodecimans,
The Council of Nicza was to find more difficulty in the
East than in the West in establishing complete uniformity in
the celebration of Easter. Without regard to the synodical
decisions, many Quartodecimans continued to celebrate Easter
according to their old custom. The Synod of Antioch in 341
was even obliged to threaten them with ecclesiastical penal-
ties if they did not adopt the common rules. It did so in
these words, in its first canon: “ All those who do not observe
the decision respecting the holy festival of Easter made by the
holy and great Synod of Nicaea, assembled in the presence of
the most pious ‘Emperor Constantine, are to be éxcommuni-
cated and cut off from the Church if they continue obstinate
in rejecting the legal rule.” The preceding refers to the
laity. But if a pastor of the Church, a bishop, priest, or
deacon, acted contrary to this decree, and ventured, to the
great scandal of the people, and at the risk of troubling the
Church, to Judaize, and to celebrate Easter with the -Jews,
1 Tdeler, ii. 305. 3 Ideler, ii. 820,
NICZA: THE LATER QUARTODECIMANS, 333°
the Synod considered him as no longer forming part of the
Church, seeing that he not only bore the weight of his own
sin, but that he was also guilty of the fall of several others.
This clergyman is by the very fact itself deposed; and not he
alone, but also all those who continue to go to him after his
deposition. Such as are deposed have no longer any right to
any of the outward honour given them by the sacred office
with which they were invested.’
These threatenings were not entirely successful. On the
contrary, we learn from S. Epiphanius’ that in his time, about
the year 400 after Christ, there were still many Quartodeci-
mans, and that they were even disagreed among themselves.
As to their faith, they are orthodox, said 5. Epiphanius ;* but
they hold too much to Jewish fables, ze. they observe the
Jewish Easter, and build upon the passage: “Cursed is he
who does not celebrate his passover on the 14th Nisan.”
All that we know respecting these Quartodecimans may be
summed up as follows :-—
a. They celebrate one day only, whilst the Catholic Easter
lasts for a whole week.®
ὁ. On that day, the day of the 1’, they fast, and they
communicate: they fast till three o’clock, consequently not a
whole day ; which 5, Epiphanius ἡ disapproves.
ce. One party among them (in Cappadocia) always cele-
brated Easter on the 25th March, on whatever day of the
week it might fall, according to the (apocryphal) Acta Pilati,
which says that Jesus Christ died on the 25th March.”
d. Others did not ΤῸ} that reason abandon the 14th
Nisan, but hoped to make the two dates agree, by celebrating
their Easter on the day of the full moon immediately follow-
ing the 25th March.*
According to this, the Quartodecimans of 8. Epiphanius
fall into three classes, one of which abandons the 18’, and con-
sequently separates itself considerably from the Jews. It is
1 Mansi, Collect. Concil. ii. 1307 sq. 3 Epiph. Heres. 50.
δ Epiph. e. 1,
* Ex. xii. 15. These exact words do not anywhere occur. They are a kind
of summary of the requirements of the law. —Ep.
5 Epiph. Heres. 50, ο. 1. 6 Epiph. ὃ, 2.
7 Kpiph. a: 2 ὃ Weitzel, lc. 8, 242, 249,
334. εἶ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
impossible to determine whether the other classes followed
the ancient or the new method of the Jews in their calcula-'
tion for Easter; but the praise which 8. Epiphanius gives
them for their orthodoxy proves that they were not Ebionites,
but that they were attached to the Johannean tradition
which was for a long time prevalent in Asia Minor.
ἼΒΕΟ, 39. The Audians.
The Audians, or Odians are a remarkable branch of the
Quartodecimans : they lived in cloisters, and followed the rules
of the monastic life. Their foundation was derived’ from a
certain Audius of Mesopotamia, about the time of the Synod
of Niceea. Audius had become celebrated by the severity of
his asceticism; and Epiphanius, who mentions him in his
History of Heretics? treats him with all possible favour, so
much so that the ascetic with whom he sympathizes makes
him almost forget the schismatic, Audius, he says,® had cen-
sured the abuses which had been introduced into the Church,
particularly the luxury and avarice of several of the bishops
and clergy, and had therefore brought upon himself much
hatred and persecution. He had borne all with patience,
when finally the blows and unworthy treatment: of which he
was the object, forced him, so to speak, to excommunicate
himself, and together with a few partisans, among whom were
found some bishops and priests, to form a particular sect.
As for the rest, adds Epiphanius, he had certainly not
fallen from the true faith: at most, he could be accused only
of having expressed and maintained a singular opinion upon
a point of small importance. Like several ancient doctors,
e.g. Melito, Audius anthropomorphically considered the resem-
blance of man to God to be in the body,—an opinion which
S. Epiphanius has refuted in a rather long dissertation.‘
Before beginning the refutation of Audius, Epiphanius relates
that this ascetic was consecrated bishop after he left the
Church, by a bishop who had left the Church with him. He
1 Called also Audeans. See Epiph. Hav. 70; Aug. de Heres. 50. Cf,
Walch, iii. 300-321.—Ep.
2 Epiphan. Heres. 70. 8 ..0,.0. de
4 Epiph. Heres, 70, ¢. 2-8 inclusive.
3
NICZA: THE AUDIANS, © 335
adds that the Audians lived by the work of their hands, and
that their whole life was truly praiseworthy."
According to Epiphanius, the second difference between the
Audians and the Church was about the celebration of the
festival of Easter. From the ninth chapter S. Epiphanius
seeks to express very explicitly what he understands by this
difference, but his exposition is not clear.
The Audians set out from this fundamental principle:
Easter must be celebrated at the same time (but not in the
same manner) as with the Jews. This practice had been that
of the primitive Church; and it was only from consideration
for the Emperor Constantine, and in order to celebrate his
birthday, that it had been abolished at Nica. Epiphanius
refutes this last accusation of the Audians, by showing that,
according to the rules of Nica, Easter could not always fall
on the same day of the month: therefore it could not always
fall on the Emperor’s birthday.
To support their manner of celebrating Easter, Epiphanius
says, that the Audians quoted a sacred book, διατάξεις τῶν
ἀποστόλων. This book, we see, bears the same title as our
so-called Apostolic Constitutions ; but the fragments of it given
by S. Epiphanius are not to be found in our text of the
Apostolic Constitutions, and especially upon the Easter ques-
tion they disagree with the contents of these Constitutions.
S. Epiphanius spares no praise of the orthodoxy of these
διατάξεις : he even finds that as to discipline it is quite
conformed to the custom of the Church. Only the Audians
interpret it erroneously in what concerns the celebration of
the Easter festival. The apostles in these διατάξεις give the
following rule: “You (that is, you Gentile Christians) ought
to celebrate Easter at the same time as your brethren who
have been Jews (ἐκ περιτομῆς). The apostles meant: You
ought to act like the rest of the faithful; whilst the Audians
interpreted their words thus: You ought to celebrate Easter
with the Jews (ot ἐν περιτομῆ). If, however, the apostolic
rule meant, in a general way, that they ought to celebrate
Easter with other Christians, Epiphanius concludes with
1 Epiph. Heres. 70, ο. 2. 2 Epiph. Heres. 70, ας. 9.
3 Epiph. Heres. 70, c. 10. 4 Epiph. Heres, 70. 10,
336° HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
reason that the Audians ought now to bow to the commands
of the Council of Niczea’; for in speaking thus, the διατάξεις
had in view the unity and uniformity of the Church. S.
Epiphanius proves that the διατάξεις really only desired unity,
and that they gave no directory of their own for the keeping
of the festival. He quotes the following passage in support of
his sentiments: “Even if those whose manner of celebrating
Easter you have adopted should be mistaken in their views,
you ought not to regard it.” The διατάξεις did not therefore
intend to prescribe the best and most correct practice, but to
induce the minority to follow the majority ; and as Christians
who had been Jews formed this majority, they recommended
Jewish practice for the establishment of unity.’
Up to this 8. Epiphanius is clear and intelligible ; but what
follows is full of difficulties, many of which are perhaps in-
soluble. Here is all that we can say with any certainty about
these riddles of C&dipus, as Petavius calls them in his notes
upon Epiphanius.?
To prove to the Audians that they should follow the sense
and not the letter of the διατάξεις, he seeks to show that,
taken in a literal sense, the text contains contradictions. In
proof, he gives the following passage in the eleventh chapter :
“ Whilst the Jews have their festival of joy (the passover),
you should weep and fast on their account, because it was
on the day of this feast that they nailed the Saviour to the
cross. And when they weep and eat unleavened bread with
bitter herbs, you should celebrate your festival of joy.”
Now, as the Jews held this festival on a Sunday, it would
follow, according to the διατάξεις, that Christians should
weep and fast on the Sunday. But this is forbidden, and
the διατάξεις themselves say, “ Cursed be’ he who fasts on
the Sunday.” Here there is a manifest contradiction; and,
looked at-closely, there is even a double contradiction: for,
1st, It is commanded to fast, and yet not to fast on the
Sunday; and 2d, This precept is in opposition to the
other, which the Audians pretend to draw from the διατάξεις,
namely, that they ought to celebrate Easter with the Jews.
Thus, says Epiphanius, the διατάξεις, according to the opinion
1 Epiph. 1.0. 9. 10 and 14, 2 Vol. 11. p. 297.
fa)
~ NICZA: THE AUDIANS. 337
of the Audians on the one side, require Easter to be kept
with the Jews ; and on the other, they require Christians to
do the contrary of what the Jews do. S. Epiphanius then
tries to smooth this difficulty about the literal sense, and does
it in the following way: “When the Jews celebrate their
feast after the equinox, you may do so at the same time as
they ; but if, according to their new and wrong reckoning,
they celebrate it before the equinox, you should not imitate
them: for in that case there would be two celebrations of
Easter in the same year.”
S. Epiphanius having this solution in mind, had already
made allusion to it at the beginning of the eleventh chapter,
by remarking that Easter was calculated according to the
sun, the equinox, and the moon, whilst the Jews paid no
attention to the equinox. By this remark he interrupts his
demonstration of the contradictions contained in the διατάξεις.
He had said, indeed, at the end of the tenth chapter: “ Even
the terms (the terms of the διατάξεις) contain a contradiction,
for they contain the command to observe the fast of the vigil
during the time of the feast of unleavened bread (μεσαζόντων
τῶν ἀζύμων). Now, according to ecclesiastical calculation,
that is not possible every year.” With Petavius, I think
that Epiphanius here simply says the same as in the eleventh
chapter: “When the Jews feast, we should fast; but the
repast of the Jews often takes place on the Sabbath, during
which day it is forbidden to fast.” The meaning, then, of
the words quoted above is this: “They demand that we
should fast on the day of the feast of unleavened bread, that
is, on the day of the «8 (μεσαξ ἀξ = during the time of
unleavened bread). But, according to the Church calendar,
that is not always possible, because sometimes the 18’ falls
on a Sunday.” I regard, then, the last words of the tenth
chapter as merely announcing the contradiction which is
afterwards shown in the eleventh chapter. Weitzel gives
another meaning to these words :' “ The vigil of Easter (be-
fore the festival of the resurrection) should always fall in
the middle of the week of unleavened bread, which is not
always possible, according to the ecclesiastical calculation.”
1 Die christliche Passafeier, S. 258.
μέ
338 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Tt is quite true that this coincidence could not always take
place according to the calculation of Nica; but it would
have been of no use for Epiphanius to appeal to the Council
of Nicza, as it was no authority to the Audians. With
them, on the contrary, the eve of the festival of the resurrec-
tion always fell about the middle of the week of unleavened
bread, that is to say, at the end of the second day. Besides,
the connection between the tenth and eleventh chapters, and
the line of argument of S. Epiphanius, render necessary the
explanation which we have given of this passage.
In bringing forward these contradictions of the διατάξεις,
S. Epiphanius simply wished to refute the exaggerated Quarto-
decimanism of the Audians; but he does not mean to say
that these same Audians followed all these principles of the
διατάξεις. He does not say, “ You celebrate Easter with
the Jews, and you fast when they are eating the passover.”
On the contrary, it appears that they were ignorant of these
further requirements of the διατάξεις ; for Epiphanius does
not in the least reproach them with acting in this way. He
does not suppose in any way that they so hold it, but he
shows them that that is what the διατάξεις teach. All that
we know of the way of celebrating Easter in use among the
Audians is therefore reduced to this :—
a. They always celebrated Easter with the Jews, conse-
quently on the day of the wd.
b. They did not separate themselves from the Jews, even
when the latter kept their passover before the equinox. This
twofold practice is entirely in harmony with what we know
of the origin and character of the Audians. Before separating
from the Church, they shared the sentiments of many Asiatic
Christians; that is to say, they were Johannean Quarto-
decimans, who celebrated their Easter, communicated, and
ended their fast on the day of the 16’. The orthodoxy of
the Church which they left (the Catholic Church of Asia
Minor), and the praises of 8. Epiphanius of their faith, do
not allow us to suppose that they could have been Ebionite
Quartodecimans. Epiphanius does not say that they cele-
brate Easter in the same manner as the Jews, but only that
they celebrate it at the same time as the Jews. Neither
NICZA: THE AUDIANS, | S39
miust we conclude that they were Ebionites because they
sometimes kept Easter with the Jews before the equinox.
That only proves that they followed the 1d’ closely, simply,
and literally, without troubling themselves with astronomical
calculations. When the Jews celebrated the 1d’, they kept
their Christian feast.
We have seen that they appealed to an apoerypbhl book.
We do not know if they followed the rules of this book on
other points. The analysis which Epiphanius makes of all
the passages of the διατάξεις shows us that the Audians did
not follow entirely the rules given in this work about the
celebration of Easter. It is not easy to determine the exact
meaning of these rules. As Epiphanius understands them,
they set forth the following requirements :—< When the Jews.
keep their passover after the equinox, you may celebrate
Easter at the same time; but if, according to their new and
erroneous reckoning, they keep it before the equinox, you
ought not to imitate them.” Weitzel gives another meaning
to this passage: “When the Jews eat,” etc. He believes
that the διατάξεις wish to establish a middle course between
the Western and Eastern practices—that Quartodecimanism
is their basis; to which they add the two following direc-
tions :—
a, On the day of the 5, when the Jews keep their pass-
over, you should fast and weep, because it is the day of Christ’s
death.
Ὁ. But when the Jews are mourning on the days following
the passover, or more exactly, on the Mazot days, you should
feast, that is to say, you should celebrate your Easter festival
on the day of the resurrection. '
They therefore preserved on one side the Asiatic practice,
which required that Easter should be regulated according to
the day of the month; and on the other, they admitted “the
Roman custom, which was to fast on the day of Christ’s death,
and to celebrate the festival on the day of His resurrection.
The eve of that day would then be the ἀγρυπνία μεσαζόντων
τῶν ἀζύμων spoken of by Epiphanius at the end of the tenth
chapter, We have shown above that this latter opinion was
without foundation; and besides, Weitzel’s hypothesis has
840 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
also this against it, that it makes the διατάξεις offer a very
strange compromise between the Easter usage of the Westerns
and that of the Asiatics,—a compromise which is found no-
where else, and which the Audians would not have accepted.:
Epiphanius gives the following information upon the after-
history of the Audians, and the duration of this sect of the
Quartodecimans. As Audius was continually trying to spread
his doctrine further, and as he had already gained both men
and women to his side,’ the bishops complained of him to the
Emperor, who banished him to Scythia. 8S. Epiphanius does
not say how long he lived there; but he relates that he spread
Christianity among the Goths in the neighbourhood (probably
those on the borders of the Black Sea); that he founded
monasteries among them, which became celebrated for the
austerity of their rules and the chastity of their monks ; but
that he continued to celebrate Easter according to his method,
and to maintain his opinion about our likeness to God. The
Audians showed the same obstinacy in refusing to communi-
cate with other Christians, or to live even with the most
virtuous among them. What appears intolerable to 8. Epi-
phanius’ is, that they would not content themselves with the
general name of Christians, and that they united to it the name
of a man in calling themselves Audians. After the death of
Audius, Uranius was their principal bishop in Mesopotamia; but
they had several bishops in the land of the Goths, among whom
Epiphanius mentions Sylvanus. After the death of Uranius and
Sylvanus, the sect became very small. With the other Chris-
tians, they. were driven from the country of the Goths by the
pagan king Athanarich (372). “ They have also left our
country,” adds S. Epiphanius, “ and their convent on Mount
Taurus (in the south of Asia Minor), as well as those in Pales-
tine and Arabia, have been abandoned.” 8. Epiphanius con-
cludes his notice with the remark, that the number of members
of this party and of their monasteries was very small at the time
when he wrote, that is, about the year 400 after Christ; and
they then had only two resorts, one in Chalcis, and the other in
Mesopotamia. Itis hardly probable that the anthropomorphic
xonks of Egypt could have had any connection with the
1 Epiphan. Heres. c. 14 and c. 9. 2 Epiphan. c. 15.
NIC“ZA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 341
Audians: the laws of the Emperors Theodosius Π. ‘and Valen-
tinian 111. prove that the latter still existed in the fifth century,
for they were then reckoned among the heretics ;+ but in the
sixth century they altogether disappear.
Src. 40. Decision on the subject of the Meletian Schism.
The third chief business of the Synod of Niczea was to
put an end to the Meletian schism, which had broken out some
time before in Egypt, and must not be confused with another
Meletian schism which agitated Antioch half a century later.
The imperfect connection, or rather the contradiction, which
exists in the information furnished by the original documents,
hardly allows us to determine what was the true origin of the
Meletian schism of Egypt. These documents may be divided
into four classes, as chief of which, on account of their import-
ance, we must mention those discovered more than a century
ago by Scipio Maffei, in a ms. belonging to the chapter of
Verona, and printed in the third volume of his Observaziona
letterarie Routh afterwards reprinted them in his Reliquie
sacra.
These documents are all in Latin, but they are evidently
translated from the Greek ; and in order to be understood, must
often be re-translated into Greek. But that is not always suffi-
cient: in many places the text is so corrupt as to be perfectly
unintelligible. The authenticity of these documents, which
are three in number, has been doubted by no one, and their
importance has been universally acknowledged. The most
important, the largest, and the most ancient of these pieces,
is a letter written from their dungeon by the four Egyptian
bishops, Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas, to
Meletius himself. Eusebius relates that these four bishops
were seized and martyred under Diocletian.* Maffei presumes
that Phileas Bishop of Thmuis, in Upper Egypt, was the
composer of this common letter, because this bishop is known
elsewhere as a writer,’ and is quoted by Eusebius and S. Jerome
1 Codex Theod. 1. xvi. vol. v. de Haret. 1. 65.
2 Pp. 11-18 (1738). . 3 Vol. iii. p. 381 sq.
4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl, viii. 13.
5 De Martyribus. Cf. Euseb. Hist, Eccl. viii. 10,
342: Ν : HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
as a learned man.' What adds to the probability of this hype-
thesis, is the fact that in the letter in question Phileas is men-
tioned the last, whilst Eusebius and the Acts of the Martyrs,
translated into Latin, mention him first, and represent him as:
one of the most important men in Egypt. _ Besides, this
letter by Phileas, etc, was evidently written at the com-
mencement of the schism of Meletius, and before he had been
formally separated from the Church; for the bishops gave’
him the name of dzlectus comminister in Domino. “ They
have,” they say, “ for some time heard vague rumours on the
subject of Meletius: he was accused of troubling the divine
order and ecclesiastical rules. Quite recently these reports:
had been confirmed by a great number of witnesses, so that.
they had been obliged to write this letter. It was impossible.
for them to describe the general sadness and profound emotion
occasioned by the ordinations that Meletius had held in strange:
dioceses. He was, however, acquainted with the law, so ancient
and so entirely in conformity with divine and human right,
which forbids a bishop to hold an ordination in a strange diocese.
But without respect to this law, or to the great bishop and:
father Peter (Archbishop of Alexandria), or for those who were
in prison, he had brought everything into a state of confusion.
Perhaps he would say in self-justification, that necessity had
obliged him to act thus, because the parishes were without.
pastors. But this allegation was false, for they had instituted
several περιοδευταὶ and visitors ; and in case of these being
negligent, he should have brought the matter before the im-
prisoned bishops. In case they should have told him that.
these bishops were already executed, he could easily have dis-
covered if it were so; and even supposing that the news of
their death had been verified, his duty was still to ask of the
chief Father (Peter Archbishop of Alexandria) permission to
hold ordinations.” Finally, the bishops recommended: him to
observe the holy rules of the Church for the future. |
The second document is a short notice added by an ancient:
anonymous writer to the preceding letter. It is thus worded :
2 Euseb. 1.6: viii. 9,10 ; Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. s.v. Phileas.
? Euseb. /.c. viii. 9, 13; Baron. ad ann. 306, No. 52; Ruinart, Acta Martyr.
ii. 157, ed. Aug. Vindel.
NICZA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM, 343.
“Meletius having received and read this letter, made no an-'
swer to it, nor did he go either to the imprisoned bishops or
to Peter of Alexandria. After the death of these bishops as:
martyrs, he went immediately to Alexandria, where he made
partisans of two intriguers, Isidore and Arius, who wished to
become priests, and were full of jealousy against their arch~
bishop. They pointed out to him the ‘two visitors appointed
by Archbishop Peter: Meletius excommunicated them, and
appointed two others in their place. When Archbishop Peter
was told of what was passing, he addressed the following letter
to the people of Alexandria.”
This letter is the third important document, and is thus
worded: “ Having learned that Meletius had no respect for
the letter of the blessed bishops and martyrs (we perceive that
Phileas and his companions had been already executed), but
that he has introduced himself into my diocese—that he has.
deposed those to whom I had given authority, and consecrated
others—TI request you to avoid all communion with him, until
it is possible for me to meet him with some wise men, and to:
examine into this business.”
We will thus sum up what resialte from the analysis of
these three documents :—
1st. Meletius, an Egyptian bishop (the other bishops call
him comminister) of Lycopolis in the Thebais (S. Athanasius
gives us this latter information in his Apologia contra Arianos,
No. 71), made use of the time when a great number of bishops
were in prison on account of their faith, in despite of all the
rules of the Church, to hold ordinations in foreign dioceses,
probably in those of the four bishops, Phileas, Hesychius,
Theodorus, and Pachomius.
2d. Nothing necessitated these ordinations; and if they
had been really necessary, Meletius ought to have asked per-
mission to hold'them from the imprisoned bishops, or, in case
of their death, from Peter Archbishop of Alexandria.
8d: None of these three documents tell where Archbishop
Peter was at that time, but the second and third prove that.
he was not at Alexandria. They show also that he was not
imprisoned: like his four colleagues, Phileas and the rest.
Indeed, it was because Peter could not live at Alexandria that
344. HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
he had authorized commissaries to represent hiia, but Meletius
took advantage of his absence to bring trouble into this city
also.
Again, we may conclude that Peter was not imprisoned:
(a.) Even from the letter which he wrote, saying, “ He
would go himself to Alexandria.”
(8.) From the first as well as the second document putting
a difference between his situation and that of the imprisoned
bishops.
(y.) Finally, from these words of Socrates :' “During Peter’s
flight, on account of the persecution then raging, Meletius
allowed himself to hold ordinations.” We will admit, in
passing, the fact that Archbishop Peter, like Dionysius the
Great and 8. Cyprian, had fled during the persecution, and
was absent from Alexandria, because it is of great importance
in judging of the value of other information from the same
sources.
4th. According to the second document, Meletius despised
the exhortations of the four imprisoned bishops, and would
not enter into relation either with them or with Archbishop
Peter; and after the death of these bishops he went himself
to Alexandria, where he united with Arius and Isidore, ex-
communicated the episcopal visitors appointed by Peter, and
ordained two others.
5th. Archbishop Peter, being informed of all these things,
recommended from his retreat all the faithful not to com-
municate with Meletius.
The offence of Meletius, then, consisted in his having
introduced himself without any right into other dioceses, and
in having given holy orders. It was not so much the neces-
sity of the Church as his own arrogance and ambition which
impelled him to this step. Epiphanius? and Theodoret’
tell us that Meletius came next in rank to the Bishop of
Alexandria, that he was jealous of his primate, and wished to
profit by his absence, in order to make himself master and
primate of Egypt.
The second source of information upon the origin of the
1 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 24. 2 Epiph. Heres. 68. 1.
*Theod. Her. fabul. iv. ἢ,
NICEA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 345
Meletians is composed of some expressions of S. Athanasius,
and of the ecclesiastical historian Socrates. Athanasius, who
had had much to do with the Meletians, says-—
(a.) In his Apology:* “The latter (Peter Archbishop of
Alexandria) in a synodical assembly deposed Melitius (Atha-
nasius always writes MeXirios), who had been convicted of
many offences, and particularly of having offered sacrifice to
idols. But Melitius did not appeal to another synod, neither
did he try to defend himself; but he raised a schism, and to
this day his followers do not call themselves Christians, but
Melitians. Shortly afterwards he began to spread invectives
against the bishops, particularly against Peter, and subse-
quently against Achillas and Alexander” (who were Peter's
two immediate successors).
(8.) The same work of 5. Athanasius’ furnishes us also
with the following information: “From the times of the
bishop and martyr Peter, the Melitians have been schismatics
and enemies of the Church: they injured Bishop Peter,
maligned his successor Achillas, and denounced Bishop Alex-
ander to the Emperor.”
(y.) S. Athanasius in a third passage says:* “The Melitians
are impelled by ambition and avarice.” And: “They were
declared schismatics fifty-five years ago, and thirty-six years
ago the Arians were declared heretics.”
(6.) Finally, in a fourth passage:* “The Eusebians knew
well how the Melitians had behaved against the blessed
martyr Peter, then against the great Achillas, and finally
against Alexander of blessed memory.”
Socrates agrees so well in all concerning the Meletians
with what Athanasius says, that it might be supposed that
Socrates had only copied Athanasius.®
Here is an epitome of the facts given by both:
1. They accuse Meletius of having offered sacrifice to the
gods during the persecution. The three documents analysed
above do not say a word of this apostasy, neither does Sozomen
mention it; and S. Epiphanius gives such praises to Meletius,
Ἃ Contra Arianos, n. 59. 2 Apologia contra Arianos, No. 11.
3 Athanas. ad episc. Aigypti et Libya, c. 22. 4 Ibid. c 38.
5 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 6, p. 14, ed. Mog.
346 1. "|. . “HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, :
that certainly he did not even suspect him of this apostasy.
It may also be said with some reason, that such consideration
would not have been shown to Meletius and his followers
by the Synod of Nicza if he had really offered sacrifice to
idols." A.
On the other hand, it cannot be admitted that S. Athana-
sius should have knowingly accused Meletius of a crime which
he had not committed. The whole character of this great man
is opposed to such a supposition ; and besides, the commonest
prudence would have induced him to avoid making an accu-
sation which he knew to be false, in a public work against
declared adversaries. It is much more probable that such
reports were really circulated about Meletius, as other bishops,
eg. Eusebius of Ceesarea, were subjected to the like calumny.
What may perhaps have occasioned these rumours about
Meletius, is the fact that for some time’ this bishop was
able to traverse Egypt without being arrested, and ordained
priests at Alexandria and elsewhere; whilst bishops, priests,
and deacons who were firm in the faith were thrown into
prison, and shed their blood for their holy faith. |
2. Athanasius and Socrates reproach Meletius with having
despised, calumniated, and persecuted the Bishops of Alexan-
dria, Peter, Achillas, and Alexander.
3. By comparing the expressions of §. Athanasius with the
original documents analysed above, we are able to determine
almost positively the period of the birth of the Meletian
schism. Athanasius, indeed, agrees with the three original
documents, in affirming that it broke out during the episcopate
of Peter, who occupied the throne of Alexandria from the year
300 to 311. Κ Athanasius gives us a much more exact date
when he says that the Meletians had been declared schismatics
fifty-five years before. Unfortunately we do not know in
what year he wrote the work in which he gives this infor-
mation. It is true that S. Athanasius adds these words to
the text already quoted: “For thirty-six years the Arians
have been declared heretics.” If S. Athanasius is alluding
to the condemnation of Arianism by the Council of Nicea,
Ὁ Walch, Ketzergesch. ΤῊ], iv. S. 391 f.
3 Epiphanius says that he was subsequently imprisoned in his turns
NIC.EA: DECISION ON THE 3XIELETIAN SCHISM. 347
he must have written this work in 361, that is tosay, thirty=
six years after the year 325, when the Council οἱ Nicza:
was held; but others, and particularly the learned Benedic-
tine Montfaucon, reckon these thirty-six years from the year
320, when the heresy of Arius was first condemned by the
Synod of Alexandria. According to this calculation, Atha-
nasius must have written his Hpistola ad Episcopos Afgypti®
in 356. These two dates, 356 and 361, give us 301 or 506:
as the date of the origin of the schism of Meletius, since it
was fifty-five years before 356 or 361, according to ὃ. Atha-
nasius, that the Meletians were condemned. We have there-
fore to choose between 301 and 306; but we must not forget:
that, according to the original documents, this schism broke:
out during a terrible persecution against the Christians. Now,,
as Diocletian’s persecution did not begin to rage in a cruel
manner until between the years 303 and 305, we are led to
place the origin of this schism about the year 304 or 305.
4. Our second series of original authorities do not say that
Meletius ordained priests in other dioceses, but S. Athanasius
mentions that ‘Meletius was convicted of many offences.”
We may suppose that he intended an allusion to these ordi-.
nations, and consequently it would be untrue to say that
Athanasius and the original documents are at variance.
5.. Neither can it be objected that S. Athanasius men-.
tions a condemnation of Meletius by a synod of Egyptian
bishops, whilst the original documents say nothing about it,
for these documents refer only to the first commencement of
the Meletian schism. Sozomen, besides, is agreed upon this.
point. with S. Athanasius, in the main at least. He says :*
“ Peter Archbishop of Alexandria excommunicated the Mele-
tians, and. would not consider their baptism to be valid;
Arius blamed. the bishop for this severity.’ It must be
acknowledged that, according to the right opinion respecting.
heretical baptism, the archbishop. was here too severe; but:
also it: must not be forgotten that the question of the validity
1 See above, sec. 10.
2 Cf. his Admonitio to this letter in Opera Athanas. vol. i. 1, p 2312, os
Patav. Cf. Walch, Ketzergesch. Thi. iv. S. 381 ἢ, Thi. ii S. 421, 1... ;
3 Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 15. .
348 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
of baptism administered by heretics was not raised until later,
and received no complete and definite solution till 314, at the
Council of Arles.
Up to this point, the documents whieh we have consulted
have nothing which is mutually contradictory ; but we can-
not say as much of the account given us of the Meletian
schism by S. Epiphanius He says: “In Egypt there exists
a party of Meletians, which takes its name from a bishop of
the Thebais called Medjrios. This man was orthodox, and
in what concerns the faith did not at all separate from the
Church. . . . He raised a schism, but he did not alter the
faith. During the persecution he was imprisoned with Peter,
the holy bishop and martyr (of Alexandria), and with others.
. . . He had precedence of the other Egyptian bishops, and
came immediately after Peter of Alexandria, whose auxiliary
he was. . . . Many Christians had fallen during the perse-
cution, had sacrificed to idols, and now entreated the con-
fessors and martyrs to have compassion on their repentance.
Some of these penitents were soldiers; others belonged to the
clerical order. These were priests, deacons, etc. There was
then much hesitation and even confusion among the martyrs:
for some said that the dapst should not be admitted to peni-
tence, because this ready admission might shake the faith of
others. The defenders of this opinion had good reasons for
them. We must number among these defenders Meletius,
Peleus, and other martyrs and confessors: all wished that
they should await the conclusion of the persecution before
admitting the Japs: to penitence. They also demanded that
those clergy who had fallen should no longer exercise the
functions of their office, but for the rest of their lives should
remain in lay communion.” The holy Bishop Peter, mer-
ciful as he ever was, then made this request: “ Let us receive
them if they manifest repentance; we will give them a pen-
ance to be able afterwards to reconcile them with the Church.
We will not refuse them nor the clergy either, so that shame
and the length of time may not impel them to complete per-
dition.” Peter and Meletius not agreeing upon this point, a
division arose between them; and when Archbishop Peter
1 Epiph. Heres, 68, 1-4
NICZA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 349
perceived that his merciful proposition was formally set aside
by Meletius and his party, he hung his mantle in the middle
of the dungeon as a sort of curtain, and sent word by a
deacon: “ Whoever is of my opinion, let him come here;
and let whoso holds that of Meletius go to the other side.”
Most passed over to the side of Meletius, and only a few to
Peter. From this time the two parties were separate in their
prayers, their offerings, and their ceremonies. [eter after-
wards suffered martyrdom, and the Archbishop Alexander
was his successor. Meletius was arrested with other con-
fessors, and condemned to work in the mines of Palestine.*
On his way to exile Meletius did what he had before done in
prison,—ordained bishops, priests, and deacons, and founded
churches of his own, because his party and that of Peter
would not have communion with each other. The successors
of Peter called theirs the Catholic Church, whilst the Mele-
tians named theirs the Church of the Martyrs. Meletius went
to Eleutheropolis, to Gaza, and to Aelia (Jerusalem), and
everywhere ordained clergy. He must have remained a long
time in the mines; and there also his followers and those of
Peter would not communicate together, and assembled in
different places for prayer. At last they were all delivered.
Meletius still lived a long time, and was in friendly relations
with Alexander, the successor of Bishop Peter. He occupied
himself much with the preservation of the faith. Meletius
lived at Alexandria, where he had a church of his own. It
was he who first denounced the heresy of Arius to Bishop
Alexander.
We see that Epiphanius gives the history of the Meletian
schism in quite a different way from S. Athanasius and the
original documents. According to him, the origin of this
schism was the disagreement between Meletius and Peter on
the subject of the admission of the lapsi, and particularly
about the clergy who had fallen. In this business Meletius
had not been so severe as the Novatians, but more so than
his archbishop, who had shown too much mercy,—so much
so that the right appeared to be undoubtedly on his side. In
order to explain this contrast, it has often been supposed that
1 Cf. Euseb. de Martyr. Palest. c. 7.
350 4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, ©
Epiphanius took a notice composed by a Meletian as the
foundation of his own account, and that he was thus led to
treat Meletius much too favourably. But it seems to me
that it may be explained more satisfactorily. 8. Epiphanius
relates, that on his way to the mines, Meletius founded a
Church for his party at Eleutheropolis. Now Eleutheropolis
was the native country of 5. Epiphanius, consequently he
must have known many of the Meletians personally in his
youth. These fellow-countrymen of S. Epiphanius would
doubtless make him acquainted with the origin of their party,
placing it in the most favourable light; and subsequently S.
Epiphanius would give too favourable an account of them in
his work,
It may now be asked, What is the historical value of S.
Epiphanius’ history? I know that very many Church his-
torians have decided in its favour, and against Athanasius ;
but since the discovery of original documents, this opinion is
no longer tenable, and it must be acknowledged that S.
Epiphanius was mistaken on the principal points.’
a. According to Epiphanius, Meletius was imprisoned at
the same time as Peter. Now the original documents prove
that, at the time of the commencement of the schism, neither
Peter nor Meletius was in prison.
b. According to S. Epiphanius, Bishop Peter of Alexan-
dria was too merciful towards the laps: ; but the penitential
canons of this bishop present him in quite another light, and
prove that. he knew how to keep a wise middle course, and
to proportion the penance to the sin.” He who had borne
torture for a long time before allowing himself to be con-
quered by the feebleness of the flesh, was to be less severely
punished than he who had only resisted for a very short time.
The slave who, by order of his master, and in his stead, had
sacrificed to idols, was only punished by a year of ecclesias-
tical penance, whilst his master was subjected to a penance
of three years (canons 6 and 7). The tenth canon particu-
larly forbids that deposed priests should be restored to their
_ 1 An entirely contrary opinion to ours has been expressed by Walch, 1.6. Thl,
‘iv. S. 378.
2 Mansi, i. 1270, can. 1, 2, 3, 5,
NICZA; DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. SOL
cures, and that. anything but lay communion should be granted
to them. Peter therefore here teaches exactly what 8. Epi-
phanius supposes to be the opinion of Meletius, and what,
according to him, Peter refused to admit. )
6. §. Epiphanius is mistaken again, when he relates that
Peter was martyred in priscn, as the original documents, and
S. Athanasius, who had the opportunity of knowing the facts,
tell us that Peter left his retreat, and excommunicated
Meletius in a synod.
d. According to S. Epiphanius, Alexander was the im-
mediate successor of Bishop Peter, whilst in reality it was
Achillas who succeeded Peter, and Alexander succeeded him.
6. Finally, according to 8. Epiphanius, the schismatic
Meletius, although having a separate church at Alexandria,
was on the best terms with Archbishop Alexander, and de-
nounced the heresy of Arius to him; but the whole conduct
of Meletius towards the Archbishop of Alexandria, and the
part taken by the Meletians in the Arian heresy, give much
more credibility to the assertion of 8. Athanasius. Meletius,
according to him, despised and persecuted Bishop Alexander,
as he had before done his predecessors on the throne of
Alexandria,
_ We have exhausted the three sources of information already
mentioned. Those remaining for us to consult have neither
the importance, nor the antiquity, nor the historical value of
the three first. Among these documents there are, however,
two short accounts by Sozomen and Theodoret,’ which deserve
consideration, and which agree very well with the original docu-
ments, and in part with what is said by 8. Athanasius. We
have already made use of these accounts. As for S. Augustine,
he mentions the Meletians only casually, and says nothing as
to the origin of the sect; besides, he must have had before
him the account of Epiphanius.”
The great importance of the Meletian schism decided the
Council of Nicza to notice it, especially as, in the Emperor's
mind, the principal object of the Council was to restore peace
to the Church. Its decision on this matter has been preserved
1 Theodor. Hist. Eccles. i, 9, and Heret. fabul. iv. 7.
3 Augustine, de Heres. c. 48; Walch, lc. S. 358, 362, 366,
352 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
to us in the synodical letter of the Egyptian bishops, etc.,
who speak in these terms of the Meletian schism, after having
treated of the heresy of Arius: “It has also been necessary
to consider the question of Meletius and those ordained by
him ; and we wish to make known to you, beloved brethren,
what the Synod has decided upon this matter. The Synod
desired, above all things, to show mercy; and seeing, on
carefully considering all things, that Meletius does not deserve
consideration, it has been decided that he should remain in
his city, but without having any authority there, and without
the power of ordination, or of selecting the clergy. He is
also forbidden to go into the neighbourhood or into any other
town for such an object. Only the simple title of bishop
should remain to him; and as for the clergy ordained by
him, it is necessary to lay hands upon them again, that they
may afterwards be admitted to communion with the Church,
to give them their work, and to restore to them the honours
which are their due; but in all dioceses where these clergy
are located, they should always come after the clergy ordained
by Alexander. As for those who, by the grace of God and
by their prayers, have been preserved from all participation
in the schism, and have remained inviolably attached to the
Catholic Church, without giving any cause for dissatisfaction,
they shall preserve the right of taking part in all ordinations,
of presenting such and such persons for the office of the
ministry, and of doing whatever the laws and economy of
the Church allow. If one of these clergy should die, his
place may be supplied by one newly admitted (that is to say,
a Meletian); but on the condition that he should appear
worthy, that he should be chosen by the people, and that
the Bishop of Alexandria should have given his consent to
such election.” These stipulations were to be applied to all
the Meletians. There was, however, an exception made with
Meletius, that is to say, that the rights and prerogatives of a
bishop were not retained to him, because they well knew his
1 In Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 9; Theodor. Hist. Eccles. i. 9; Gelasius, 1.6. lib,
ii. c. 33.
? That is to say, that the ordination was not to be repeated, but simply made
valid. Cf: Tillemont, Mémoires, etc., vol. vi. note 12, sur le Concile de Nicée.
NICHIA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 353:
incorrigible habit of putting everything in disorder, and also:
his precipitation. Therefore, that he might not continue to
do as he had done before, the ee took from him all
power and authority. :
“This is what particularly concerns Egypt and the Church
of Alexandria. If any other decree has been made in the
presence of our dear brother of Alexandria, he will acquaint
you with it when he returns amongst you; for in all that the
Synod has done, he has been a guide and a fellow-worker.”
It was probably on account of the Meletians, and to cut
short the pretensions of Meletius, who desired to withdraw
himself from the authority of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and
to set himself up as his equal,’ that the Synod of Niczea made
this plain declaration in its sixth canon: “ The ancient order
of things must be maintained in Egypt, in Libya, and in
Pentapolis; that is to say, that the Bishop of Alexandria shall
continue to have authority over the other bishops, having the
same relation as exists with the Bishop of Rome. The ancient
rights of the Churches shall also be protected, whether at
Antioch or in the other bishoprics. It is evident, that if one
should become a bishop without the consent of his metro-
politan, he could not, according to the order of the great
Synod, retain this dignity; but if, from a pure spirit of
contradiction, two or three should oppose an election which
the unanimity of all the others renders possible and legal, in
such a case the majority must carry the day.”?
The Synod had hoped to gain the Meletians by gentleness ;
but it succeeded so little, that after the Nicene Synod they
became more than ever enemies to the Church, and by uniting
-with the Arians, did a thousand times more harm than they
had done before. Also, in speaking of this admission of the
“Meletians into the Church, decreed by the Council of Nicea,
S. Athanasius rightly said, “ Would to God it had never taken
place!”* In the same passage we learn from S. Athanasius,
that in order to execute the decree of the Council of Nica,
‘Alexander begged Meletius to give him a list of all the bishops,
‘1 Theodor. Heret. fabul. iv. 7. |
2 Mansi, ii. 670 ; Hard. i. 326.
' 8 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 71; Opp. i. 1. 148, > .
Ζ
354 _ HISTORY OF -THE COUNCILS.
priests, and deacons who formed his party. _ Alexander wished
to prevent Meletius from hastening to make new ordinations,
to sell holy orders for money, and thus to fill the Church. with
a multitude of unworthy clergy, abusing the mercy of the
Council of Nicea: Meletius remitted, indeed, the desired list
to the Archbishop of Alexandria, and subsequently Athanasius
inserted it in his Apologia against the Arians.. We see from
it that the Meletians numbered in Egypt twenty-nine bishops,
including Meletius; and at Alexandria, four priests, three
deacons, and a military almoner. Meletius himself gave this
list to Alexander, who doubtless made these ordinations valid,
in obedience to the Council of Nicza.*
According to the ordinance of Nicaea, Meletius remained in
“his city,” Lycopolis; but after the death of Bishop Alexander,
through the mediation of Eusebius of Nicomedia, that alliance
was entered into between the Meletians and the Arians which
was so unfortunate for the Church, and particularly for S.
Athanasius, in which Meletius took part? It is not known
when he died. He nominated as his successor his friend
John, who, after being maintained in his office by the
Eusebians at the Council of Tyre in 335, was driven into
exile by the Emperor Constantine.? The best known of the
Meletians are—Bishop Arsenius, who, it is said, had had one
hand cut off by S, Athanasius; Bishop Callinicus of Pelusium,
who at the Council of Sardica was a decided adversary of S.
Athanasius; the hermit Paphnutius, who must not be mis-
taken for the bishop of the same name who at the Council of
Nicsea was the defender of the marriage of priests ;* and the
pretended priest Ischyras, who was among the principal ac-
cusers and most bitter enemies of S. Athanasius. We shall
afterwards have occasion to speak of the part taken by the
Meletians in the troubles excited by the heresy of Arius;
suffice it here to say, that this schism existed in Egypt until
1 Athanas. l.c. c. 72. The above shows that S. Epiphanius was mistaken in
‘supposing (Heres. 68. 3) that Meletius was dead before the Nicene Council. We
cannot, however, be sure that he was present in person there. Οἱ, Walch, l.c.
8. 390.
2 Athanas. Apologia, c. 59; Epiphan. Heres. 68. 6; Theodor. Hist. Eccl.
i, 26.
3 Sozom. ii. 31, . 4 Tillem. Jc. vi. 100.
NIC-EA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS, 855
the middle of the fifth century, as is attested by Socrates and
Theodoret, both contemporaries. The latter mentions espe-
cially some very superstitious Meletian. monks who practised
the Jewish ablutions.? But after the middle of the fifth cen-
κυ the Meletians altogether disappear from ἜΡΙΣ,
Sec. 41. Number of the Nicene Canons.
The Synod of Nicea also set forth a certain number of
canons or prescriptions on discipline; but there has been
much discussion as tothe number. We give here our opinion
upon this question, which we have before discussed in the
Tiibinger Theologische Quartalschrift.
Let us see first what is the testimony of shite Greek and
Latin authors who lived about the time of.the Council, con-
cerning the number.
a. The first to be consulted among the Greek authors is
the learned Theodoret, who lived about a century after the
Council of Nica. He says, in his History of the Church :*
“ After the condemnation of the Arians, the bishops assembled
once more, and decreed twenty canons on ecclesiastical dis-
cipline.”
b. Twenty years later, Gelasius Bishop of Cyzicus, after
much research inte the most ancient documents, wrote a his-
tory of the Nicene Council.’ Gelasius also says expressly
that the Council decreed twenty canons; and, what is more
important, he gives the original text of these canons exactly in
the same order, and according to the tenor which we find
elsewhere.® .
6. Rufinus is more ancient than these two historians. He
was born near the period when the Council of Nica was held,
and about half a century after he wrote his celebrated history
of the Church, in which he inserted a Latin translation of
the Nicene canons. Rufinus also knew only of these twenty
canons; but as he has divided the sixth and the eighth into
1 Socrat. Hist. Heel. i. 8, p. 88, ed. Mog. ; Theodor. Hist. Eccles. i. 9, p. 32,
ed. Mog.
3 Theodor. Heret. fabul. iv. 7. 31851, Heft i. S. 49 fh.
4 Theodor. lib. i. ¢. 8. 5 See above sec. 23.
6 Lib. ii. c. 80 and 31; in Hard. i, 480 sqq.
356 _ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
two parts, he has given twenty-two canons, which are exactly
the same as the twenty furnished by the other historians.
d. The famous discussion between the African bishops and
the Bishop of Rome, on the subject of appeals to Rome, gives
us a very important testimony on the true number of the
Nicene canons.” The presbyter Apiarius of Sicca in Africa,
having been deposed for many crimes, appealed to Rome.
Pope Zosimus (41 7--41 8) took the appeal into consideration,
sent legates to Africa ; and to prove that he had the right to
act thus, he quoted a canon of the Council of Nicza, contain-
ing these words: “ When a bishop thinks he has been un-
justly deposed by his colleagues, he may appeal to Rome, and
the Roman bishop shall have the business decided by judices
in partibus.” The canon quoted by the Pope does not belong
to the Council of Nicea, as he affirmed ; it was the fifth canon
of the Council of Sardica (the seventh in the Latin version).
What explains the error of Zosimus is, that in the ancient
copies ἢ the canons of Niceea and Sardica are written consecu-
tively, with the same figures, and under the common title of
canons of the Council of Nica; and Zosimus might optima
Jide fall into an error which he shared with many Greek
authors, his contemporaries, who also mixed the canons of
Nicza with those of Sardica* The African bishops not find-
ing the canon quoted by the Pope either in their Greek or
in their Latin copies, in vain consulted also the copy which
Bishop Cecilian, who had himself been present at the Council
of Nicza, had brought to Carthage.” The legates of the Pope
then declared that they did not rely upon these copies, and
they agreed to send to Alexandria and to Constantinople to
ask the patriarchs of these two cities for authentic copies of
the canons of the Council of Nicewa. The African bishops
1 Rufinus, Hist. Hecl. lib. x. 6 of the entire work, or i. 6 of the continuation.
_ 53 Spittler (Gesamm. Werke) relates all this in detail, Bd. viii. 5. 158 ff. Cf.
also Ballerini, Opp. S. Leonis M. ii. 358 ; and Tiibinger Quartalschrift, 1825,
8. 39.
3 We have still the proof of this in very ancient mss. Cf. Ballerini, de Anii-
quis Collectionibus etc. Canonum, Ὁ. 380; Coustant. Diss. de Antiquis Canonum
Collect. in Galland. de Vetustis Canonum Coll. i. 78.
4 Cf. Ballerini, de Antiquis Collect. in Galland. l.c. p. 289.
5 Mansi, iv. 406 sq. ὁ. 9; Hard. dc. i, 1244, ¢. 9
NICEA! NUMBER OF THE CANONS, 357
desired in their turn that Pope Boniface should take the same
step (Pope Zosimus had died meanwhile in 418), that he
should ask for copies from the Archbishops of Constantinople,
Alexandria, and Antioch.’ Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus
of Constantinople, indeed, sent exact and faithful copies of the
Creed and canons of Nicea; and two learned men of Constan-
tinople, Theilo and Thearistus; even translated. these canons
into Latin? Their translation has been preserved to us in the
acts of the sixth Council of Carthage, and it contains only
the twenty ordinary canons? It might be thought at first
sight that it contained twenty-one canons; but on closer con-
sideration we see, as Hardouin has proved, that this twenty-
first article is nothing but an historical notice appended to the
Nicene canons by the Fathers of Carthage. It is conceived in
these terms: “ After the bishops had decreed these: rules at’
Nicea, and after the holy Council had decided what was the.
ancient rule for the celebration of Easter, peace and unity
of faith were re-established between the East and the: West.
This is what we (the African bishops) have thought it right to
add according to the history of the Church.” *
The bishops of Africa despatched to Pope Boniface the
copies which had been sent. to them from Alexandria and
Constantinople, in the month of November 419; and subse-
quently in their letters to Celestine I. (423-432), successor
to Boniface, they appealed to the text of these documents.”
6. All the ancient collections of canons, either in Latin or’
Greek, composed in the fourth, or quite certainly at least in:
the fifth century, agree in giving only these twenty canons to:
Nicsea. The most ancient of these collections were made in
the Greek Church, and in the course of time a very great.
number of copies of them were written. Many of these copies
have descended to. us; many libraries possess. copies: thus
Montfaucon enumerates several in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana.
Fabricius makes a similar catalogue of the copies in his
_ |! Mansi, iii. 834; Hard. i. 943. 2 Mansi, iv. 407; Hard. i. 1246.
3 Mansi, iv. 407; Hard. i, 1245. . .-, .
4 Mansi (iv. 41 4) has also remarked that this eat did not proceed ἢ from the
Fathers of the Council of Nica.
§ Mansi, iii. 834-839 ; Hard. i, 943-950, jiis-53 embed al teitd iad aeiX Ἰὼ
358 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Bibliotheca. Greca* to those found ‘in the librariés of Turin,
Florence, Venice, Oxford, Moscow, etc.; and he adds that these
copies also contain the so-called apostolic canons, and those
of the most ancient councils, . .
The French bishop John Tilius presented to Paris, in 1540?
a MS. of one of these Greek collections as it existed in the
ninth century. It contains exactly our twenty canons of
Niczea, besides the so-called apostolic canons, those of Ancyra,
tc... Elias Ehinger published a new edition at Wittemberg in
1614, using a second Ms, which was found at) Augsburg ;*
but the Roman collection of the Councils had before given, in
1608, the Greek text of the twenty canons of Nica. This:
text of the Roman editors, with the exception of some insig-
nificant variations, was exactly the same as. that of the edition
of Tilius. Neither the learned Jesuit..Sirmond nor his coad-
jutors have mentioned what manuscripts were consulted in
preparing this edition ; probably they were manuscripts drawn
from ’ several libraries, and particularly from that of the
Vatican”. The text of this Roman edition passed into all
the following collections, even into those of Hardouin and
Mansi; while Justell in his Bibliotheca juris Canonici, and
Beveridge in his Synodicon (both of the eighteenth century),
give a somewhat different text, also collated from Mss., and
very similar to the text given by Tilius. Bruns, in his recent
Bibliotheca LEcclesiastica,s compares the two texts. Now all
these Greek MSS., consulted at such different times, and by
all these editors, acknowledge only twenty canons of Nicetay
and always the same twenty which we possess.
The Latin. collections) of the canons of the Councils also
give the same result,—for example, the most ancient and the
most remarkable of all, the Prisca,’ and that of Dionysius the —
Less, which was collected: about the yee 500,. The’ testi-
1d. Harless, x xii, 148 sq. Cf. Ballerini, lc. p. 258.
2 One volume in quarto. 3 Fabricius, lc. p.196. 4 Fabricius, 1. 6. Ῥ. 197.
5. See the preface which Sirmond wrote for this edition, and the index to the
first volume of the Roman collection. This preface is also ce a in the works
of Sirmond—Sirmondi Opera, iv. 437, ed. Venet. 1728.
61, 14 sq. :
"It is true that the Prisca (Mansi, vi. 1114) seems to give twenty-one canons
of Nicwa, but that is because it divides canon 19 into two
NICZA: NUMBER OF THE’CANONS, 859
mony of this latfér collection is the more important for the
number twenty, as Dionysius refers to the Graca auctoritas.
jf. Among the later Eastern witnesses we may further
mention Photius, Zonaras, and Balsamon. Photius, ‘in his
Collection of the Canons, and in his Nomocanon, as well as. the
two ‘other writers in their commentaries ‘upon the canons of
the ancient Councils, quote only and know only of twenty
canons of Nica, and always those which we possess.
9. The Latin canonists of the middle ages also acknow-
ledge only these twenty canons of Nica. We have proof of
thia: in the celebrated Spanish collection, which 15. generally
but erroneously attributed to S. Isidore (it was composed at
the commencement of the seventh century*), and in that of
Adrian (so called because it was offered to Charles the Great
by Pope Adrian 1.). The celebrated Hincmar Archbishop of
Rheims, the first canonist of the ninth century, in his turn
attributes only twenty canons to the Council of Nicza; and
even the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more.
In the face of these. numerous and important testimonies
from the Greek Church and the Latin, which are unanimous
in recognising only twenty canons of Nica, and exactly
those which have been handed down to us, we cannot con-
sider authentic the Latin letter which is pretended to: have
been written to Pope Marcus by 8. Athanasius, in which it is
said that: the Council of Nicsza promulgated: first of all forty
Greek canons, then twenty Latin canons, and that afterwards
the Council reassembled, and unitedly ordained these seventy
canons.” _A tradition, erroneously established in the East,
may have caused this letter to be accepted. We know,
indeed, that in some Eastern countries it was believed that
the Coney, of Nica had pronelgaon this number of ancing
ΤΌΣ, Mansi; ii: 678; ‘and 1 Ballerini, Le. p. 478.
2 In Justell, dc. ii. 793, 813 sq.; Beveridge, Synod. vol. i...
3.Cf. Ballerini, Uc. Ῥ. 512; Walter, Kirchenrecht, 11 Aull 8. 151. _ The
Spanish collection was edited at Madrid in 1821."
4 Justell, Uc. Preef. p. 9.
5 See Athanasii Opp. ed. Bened. Patav. ii. 599. The learned Benedictine
Montfaucon says (l.c. p. 597), speaking of this letter, and of some others which
are also spurious: Sane commentis sunt. et.mendaciis resperse: exque varies
docis consarcinate, ut ne umbram quidem γνησιότητος referank
860 | HISTORY..OF.THE COUNCILS, =<
and some collections do contain seventy.. ‘Happily, since the
sixteenth century we have. been. in possession of these pre-
tended. canons of Ni lea; we ean. therefore judge them with
certainty. ἡ
The first who made them. iadwn in the West was thie
Jesuit J. Baptista Romanus, who, having’ been sent. to Alex-
andria by: Pope Paul‘tv., found an Arabic Ms. in the house
of the patriarch of: that’ city, containing eighty canons of
the Council of Nica. He copied the s., took his copy to
Rome, and translated it into Latin, with the help of George
of Damascus, a Maronite archbishop. The learned Jesuit
Francis Turrianus interested himself in this discovery, and
had the translation of Father Baptista revised and improved
by a merchant of Alexandria who was in Rome. About the
same time another Jesuit, Alphonso Pisanus, composed ἃ
Latin history of the Council of Nicza, with the help of the
work: of Gelasius of Cyzicus, which had. just been discovered ;
and at; his request Turrianus communicated to him the Latin
translation of the Arabic canons. Pisanus received them into
his work.2 In the first edition® the testimony of the pre-
tended letter of S. Athanasius to Marcus caused him to reduce
the eighty canons to.seventy ;. but in the subsequent editions
he renounced this abbreviation, and published all the eighty
eanons in. the. order of tle. Arabic Ms. It was in this way
that the Latin translation of the eighty so-called Arabic
canons of Nica passed into the other collections of the
Councils, particularly into that οὗ Venice and of Binius.
Some more recent collections, however, adopted the text of
a later translation, which Turrianus had made.
Shortly after thé first edition of Alphonso: Pisanus ap-
peared; Turrianus made the acquaintance.of a young con-
verted Turk called Paul Ursinus, who knew Arabic very
well, and understood Latin and Italian. Turrianus confided
to, him, a fresh” translation of the eighty Arabic canons.
Ursinus, in preparing it, made use of another ancient Arabian
e:l'This Ms. was subsequently bought by Joseph Simon Assemént of the Coptic
patriarch John ; it is now in the Vatican Library., Cf. Angelo aie, fn bie P. i
torthe tenth volume of his Scriptorum vet. nova Collectio. . :
: Lib. 1, ἌΣ νὴ ἜΑ οι Cee. 3 Dilling 1 1 73.
NICZA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS, SCT
MS., discovered in the library of Pope Marcellus 1. (1555).
This second Ms. agreed so well with that of Alexandria, that
they might both be taken for copies from one and the same
original,’ Turrianus: published ‘this more accurate transla-
tion in 1578, He accompanied it with notes, and added a
Proémiwm, in which he tried to prove that the Council of
Niccea promulgated more. than twenty canons.’ All the collec-
tions of the Councils since Turrianus have considered his posi-
tion as proved, and have admitted the eighty canons?
In the following century, the Maronite Abraham Echellensis
made .the. deepest researches with reference to the Arabic
canons of the. Council of Niczea; and. they led him’ to. the
opinion that these canons must: have been collected: from
different, Oriental nations, from the Syrians, Chaldeans, Maron-
ites, Copts,:Jacobites, and Nestorians, and that they had been
translated into many Oriental languages. At the same time
he started, and with truth, the suggestion that these Oriental]
collections were simply translations of ancient Greek originals,
and :that consequently in the Greek Church too they must
have reckoned more than twenty canons of Nicea.* After
having compared other Arabian Mss. which he had obtained,
Echellensis gave a fresh Latin translation of these canons at
Paris in 1645. . According to these Mss., there were eighty-
four canons instead of eighty. However, this difference arose
much. more from the external arrangement than from ‘the
canons themselves. Thus the thirteenth, seventeenth, thirty-
second, and fifty-sixth canons of Turrianus were each divided
into two.in the translation by Abraham Echellensis; on the
other hand, the forty-third and eighty-third of Echellensis
each formed two canons in the work of Turrianus. The
twenty-ninth, thirty-seventh, and forty-first of A. Echellensis
are wanting in Turrianus; but, again, Echellensis has not the
forty-fifth canon of Turrianus. Α superficial study of these
two collections of canons would lead to the conclusion that
ne were almost identical; but.it is not so. The corre-
τ At the pie of his Latin translation of the Constit. A postol. '
τ 2e.9, Mansi, ii. 947 sqq.; Hard. i. 463 sqq. Most of ‘our ‘nto re-
specting the eighty Arabic canons is — from the Proémium of P. Ἔμκίλλνς;
ὃ Mansi, ii. 1071, 1072 :
362 - “HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
sponding ‘canons in ‘the two ‘translations sometimes have an
entirely different meaning: We can but conclude either that
the Arabian translators understood:the Greek original diffe-
rently, or else that the Mss. which they used showed consider-
able variations. The latter supposition is the most probable ;
it would explain*how the eighty-four Arabian canons contain
the twenty genuine canons of Nicsea, but: often with consider-
able changes. Without reckoning these ‘eighty-four canons,
Echellensis' has also translated into “Latin, and published, 8
considerable number ‘of ecclesiastical’ decrees, διατυπώσεις,
constitutiones, also attributed to the Nicene Council. He
added to this work a Latin translation of the Arabic preface,
which preceded: the entire collection in the Ms., together
with a learned dissertation in defence of the eighty-four
canons, with ἃ good many notes. Mansi* has retained all
these articles, laid Hardouin? has also Hs wins the prin-
cipal part of them.
It is certain that the Orientals believed the Council of
Nicsea to’ have promulgated more than twenty canons: the
learned Anglican Beveridge has proved this, reproducing an
ancient Arabic paraphrase of the: canons of the first four
(Ecumenical Councils. According to this Arabic paraphrase,
found in a Ms. in the Bodleian Librai’y; the Council of Nicza
must have put forth three books of canons; the first contain-
ing eighty-four canons, referrig to priests, monks, etc.; the
second containing the first twenty authentic canons ; the third
being only a series of rules for kings and superiors, etc.’ The
Arabic paraphrase of which we are speaking gives a para-
phrase of all these canons, but Beveridge took only the part
referring to the second book, that is to say, the paraphrase
of the twenty genuine canons; for, according to his view,
which, as we shall show, was perfectly correct, it was only
these twenty canons which were really the work of ‘the
Council of Nica, and all the others were falsely attributed
to it. The little that Beveridge gives us of the paraphrase
of the first book of the pretended canons shows, besides, that
this first. book tolerably coincided with the fifteen decrees
1 Mansi, ii. 982-1082. ees AS Hard £47588 -
3 Beveregius, Synodicon sive Pandecte Canonum, Oxon, 1672, i. 686.
4
ΚΙΟΖΑ: NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 863
edited by Echellensis, which concern monks, abbots, and
abbesses? Renaudot informs us that the third book of the
Arabic paraphrase proves that the third book of the canons
contained also various’ laws by Constantine, Theodosius, and
Justinian?» Beveridge believed this paraphrase to be the
work of an Egyptian priest named Joseph, who lived in the
fourteenth century,’ because that name is given in the Ms.
accompanied by that chronological date ; but Renaudot proves*
conclusively that the Egyptian priest named Joseph had
been only the possessor of the Ms. which dated from a much
earlier period. |
However it may be as to the latter point, it is certain
that these Arabic canons are not the work of the Council of
Nica: their contents evidently prove a much more recent
origin. Thus:
a. The thirty-eighth canon (the thirty-third in Turrianus)
ordains that the Patriarch of Ephesus should proceed to
Constantinople, which is the wrbs regia, ut honor sit regno e
sacerdotio simul, This decree therefore supposes that Byzan-
tium was then changed into Constantinople, and that it had
become the imperial residence. Now this change did not
take place until about five years after the Council of Nicwa.
At the period when the Council was held, Byzantium ‘was
still quite an insignificant town, almost reduced to ruins by
a previous devastation.” The bishopric of Constantinople
was only raised to the dignity of a patriarchate by the second
and fourth Ccumenical Councils. Therefore this canon,
translated into Arabic, could not have belonged to the Council
of Nica, and does not date back further’ see os fourth
C&cumenical Council.
b. The forty-second canon of A. Echellensis (ehirty-sixth
in Turrianus) forbids the Ethiopians to elect’ a patriarch :
their: spiritual head was to bear only the pret of Catholicus,
ea Mansi, i ii, 1011: 866.
3 Renaudot, Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum Facobitarum, Paris
1713, p. 75.
3 Pref. p. xix. sq. ge ETE EA, OF :
5 Tillemont, Hist. des Binped ἢ iv. 230 Sq. 5 Baron, ad ann: 830, n. 1; iselin,
Hist, Lexik, art. ‘‘Constantinopel.”
* A. 381, can. 3; and a. 431, can. 28,
364 + HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
and to’ be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alex-
andria, etc. This canon also betrays a more recent origin
than the time of the Council of Nicea. At that period, in-
deed, Ethiopia had no bishop; hardly had 8S, Frumentius
begun the conversion of its people; and it was only subse-
quently, when S. Athanasius was already Archbishop of Alex-
andria, that S. Frumentius made him acquainted with the good
results. of his missions, and was consecrated by him bishop
to the new converts.’ . Our canon, on the contrary, supposes
a numerous episcopate to be then existing in. Ethiopia, and
its head, the Catholicus, to be desirous to free himself from
the motlier church of Alexandria. »This canon, as well as
others quoted by Turrianus and by A. Echellensis, assumes
that the institution of: patriarchates was then in full.vigour,
which was not the case at the time of the Council of Nicza.?
ὁ. Peter de Marca® has already proved the forty-third
canon of the text of A. Echellensis (thirty-seventh in Turr.)
to be more recent than the third Cicumenical Council of
Ephesus (431). This Council of Ephesus rejected the pre-
tensions of the Patriarch of Antioch respecting the choice of
the bishops of Cyprus.* According to Marca’s demonstration,
this dependence of Cyprus upon the see of Antioch cannot
be verified before the year 900: for in the time of the
Emperor Leo the Wise (911), we know, from the Wotitia of
his reign, that Cyprus was not then dependent upon Antioch ;
whilst this Arabian canon makes out that this submission
was already an accomplished fact, disputed by no one.®
d. The fifty-third canon (forty-ninth in Turr.), which con-
demns simony, has its origin from: the second canon of the
fourth CEcumenical Council of Chalcedon.’ It is therefore
evident that it was not formed at Nicza.
εἰ 6. Inthe thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and Ritidosnual canons
(c. 33, 34, and 36 in Turr.), the Bishop of Seleucia, Almo-
dajen, is already called Catholicus,—a dignity to which he
1 ee the author’s dissertation upon ‘‘ Abyssinia” in the Kirchenlexik, be
von Wetzer und Welte.
350. 8, 33, 35, 37, 46,-Turr.; ὁ. 8, 37, 38, 40, 48, 44, 45, Echels
. 8. De concord. sacerdotii et imperii, lib. ii. c. 9,
᾿ # Mansi, iv. 1470; Hard. i. 1619. pe wid taal
3 Cf. Bevereg. l.c. "vol 11.) Annocationes, p. 212,%. 9» +i. ὁ Held in 451.
NICHA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS. ee
did not attain until the sixth century, under the’ Emperor
Justinian.’ In this canon, as Seleucia has the Arabian name
of Almodajen, Renaudot concludes that these canons were
not formed until the time of Mahomet.
The Constitutiones, edited by Echellensis, still less than the
eighty-four canohs, maintain the pretension of dating back to
the Council of Niczea.
a. The first division of these Constitutions, that de Monachis
et Anachoretis, presupposes an already strong development
of monasticism.” - It speaks of convents for men and women,
abbots and abbesses, the management of convents, and the like.
But we know that, at the time of the Council of Nicea,
monasticism thus organized had scarcely made its appearance.
Even in the first times after our Synod, there were none of
those large convents mentioned in the Arabic canons, but only
hamlets of monks, consisting of groups of cabins.
b. The second series of Arabian Constitutions comprises
nineteen chapters.® It also speaks of convents, abbots, the
property and possession of convents, etc. (c. 1-10). The
eighth canon shows that there were already many monks
who were priests. Now this was certainly not the case at the
time of the Council of Nicza, when monasticism was in its
infancy. The ninth chapter speaks of Constantinople as the
imperial residence (wrbs regia), which again betrays a later
period. 7
6. The third series comprises twenty-five chapters.*| The
Nicene Creed, which is contained in it, has here already the
addition which was made to it in the second (cumenical
Council. The Arabic Creed, besides, is much longer than
the genuine one. The Orientals added several phrases, as
Abraham , Echellensis has remarked.® This Arabic Creed
asserts that Jesus Christ is perfectus homo, vera anima intel-
lectualt et rationali preditus; words betraying an intention
of opposing Apollinarism, as well as those following: duas
habentes naturas, duas voluntates, duas operationes, in una per-
sona, etc., which seem to be a protest against the heresy of
the Monophysites and the Monothelites. -
1 Renaudot, Uc. p. 78... ? Mansi, ii. 1011 sqq. 3 Mansi, ii. 1019 sqq.
4 Mansi, ii. 1080 sqq. 5 Mansi, 11, 1079. ;
$66 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
Following this Creed, the Arabic text relates, falsely, that
Constantine entreated the bishops assembled at Nica. tc
give the name of Constantinople to Byzantium, and to raise
his bishopric to the rank of an archbishopric, equal to that
of Jerusalem." 7
-The decrees of this last. series, examined in. detail, also
show that they are more recent than the Council of Nicza,
by mentioning customs of later origin. Thus the tenth chapter
commands the baptism of infants ; the twelfth and thirteenth
chapters, again, concern monks and nuns; the fourteenth
chapter finds it necessary to forbid that children should be
raised to the diaconate, and more especially to the priesthood
and episcopate.
We may therefore sum up the certain proofs resulting
from all these facts, by affirming that these Arabic canons
are not genuine; and all the efforts of Turrianus, Abraham
Echellensis, and Cardinal d’Aguirre, cannot prevent an im-
partial observer from coming to this opinion even with regard
to some of those canons which they were anxious to save,
while abandoning the others.” Together with the authenticity
of these canons, the hypothesis of Abraham Echellensis also
vanishes, which supposes them to have been collected by
Jacob, the celebrated Bishop of Nisibis, who was present at
the Nicene Synod. They belong to a later period. Assemani
offers another supposition, supporting it by this passage from
Ebed-jesu :* “Bishop Maruthas of Tagrit* translated the
seventy-three canons of Nicea.”*® Assemani believes these
seventy-three canons to be identical with the eighty-four
Arabic canons, but such identity is far from being proved.
Even the number of the canons is different; and if it were
not so, we know, from what we saw above, that several of
the Arabic canons indicate a more recent period than those of
Bishop Maruthas. It is probable that Maruthas really trans-
1 The falseness of all this is evident from the fact that Byzantium was not
aised by Constantine to the dignity of the metropolis until the year 330.
2 Cf. Pagi, Crit. in Annales Baron. ad ann. 825, ἢ. 45; Pearson, Vindicia
Epist. Ignat. P. i. p. 177; Richer, Hist. Councils-General, i, 110; Ludovici,
Pref. ad Ittig. Hist, Concil. Nic.
3 Sec. xiv. 4 Sec. v.
5 Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. i. 28, 195 ; Angelo Mai, U.c. Preef. p. vii.
NICZA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS, 367
lated seventy-three canons, supposed to be Nicene’; that is
to say, that he had in his hands one of those mss. spokin of
above, which contained various collections of canons falsely
attributed to the Council of Nica.
It will be asked why in some parts of the East they should
have attributed so great a number of canons to the Council of
Nicea. It is not difficult to explain the mistake. We know,
indeed, that the canons of various councils were at a very
early period collected into one corpus; and in this corpus the
canons of Nicsea always had the first place, on account of
their importance. It happened afterwards, that either acciden-
tally or designedly, some copyists neglected to give the names
of the councils to those canons which followed the: Nicene.
We have already seen that even at Rome there was a copy
containing, sub wno titulo, the canons of Nicza and those of
Sardica. When these copies were circulated in the East, that
which might have been foreseen took place in course of time:
viz., from a want of the spirit of criticism, all the later canons
which followed after the true canons were attributed to the
Council of Niczea.
But it must also be said that certain learned men, especially
Baronius” and the Spanish Cardinal d’Aguirre,® have tried
hard to prove, from the only Greek and Latin memorials, and
without these Arabic canons, that the Synod of Nicza pub-
lished more than twenty canons.
a. The Synod, said Aguirre, certainly set forth a canon on
the celebration of Easter ; and a proof of this is, that Balsamon,
in his commentary upon the first canon of Antioch, mentions
this Nicene canon as being in existence. There must there-
fore, concludes Aguirre, have been above twenty Nicene
canons. But it may be answered that the ancient authors
make no mention of a canon, but only of a simple ordinance,
of the Council of Nicza respecting the celebration of the
Easter festival; and it is indeed certain that such a rule was
given by the Council, as is proved by the synodical decree.‘
As for Balsamon, he says exactly the contrary to what Car-
1 Cf. Spittler, Geschichte des Canonischen Rechts, S. 108, note.
? Annales, ad ann. 325, n. 156 sqq. e
5 Collect. Concil. Hispan. i.1; Appar. Diss. 8. 4 Socrat. i, 9.
368 © “HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. ©:
dinal Aguirre maintains,—namely, ἐν γοῦν τοῖς κανόσι TOP
ἐν Νικαίᾳ πατέρων τοῦτο οὐχ εὕρηται, εἰς δὲ τὰ πρακτικὰ τῆς
πρώτης συνόδου εὑρίσκεται; that is to say, “which is not to
be found in the canons of the Fathers of Nicsa, but which
was there discussed.” D’Aguirre evidently did not consult
the Greek text of Baleamon, but probably made use of the
inaccurate Latin translation which Schelstrate has given of 10.
But even admitting that some later writer may have given as a
canon the Nicene rule about Easter, even the nature of things
shows that it could only be a disciplinary measure. Perhaps
also a passage of the Synod held at Carthage in 419 had
been misunderstood. This Synod says that the Council of
Niceea re-established the antiquus canon upon the celebration
of Easter ;> which from the context means, and can mean, only
this—the ancient rule for the celebration of Easter was re-
stored by the Council of Nicza, to be observed by the genera-
tions following.
b. Cardinal d’Aguirre says, in the second place, that if some
very ancient authors are to be trusted, the acts of the Coun-
cil of Nicsea were very voluminous, and he concludes from
this that there must have been more than twenty canons; but
we have explained above that it is very doubtful whether
these acts contained more than the Creed, the canons, and the
synodical letter; and even if the acts were really very volu-
minous, it does not necessarily follow that they contained a
larger number of canons. The acts of the Council of Ephesus
are very extensive; but nevertheless that Council published
only six canons, εἰν at the most, if we consider as canons
two decrees which had a special object.
ὁ. Aguirre suggests further, that the Arians burnt the com-
plete acts of the “Council of Nicza, and allowed only these
twenty canons to remain, in order to have it believed that
the Council had decreed no others. Baronius* also makes a
similar supposition, but there is not the slightest’ proof of
' In Bevereg. Me ἈΠ ΤΉΝ 2 Concil. Antioch. Antwerp 1681.
3 Hard. i. 1428, n. 21; Mansi, iv. 415, in the note.
4 Baronius, ad ann. 325, n. 62.
5 The letter of S. Athanasius to Mark, speaking of that, is Ἀν ΠΣ ΛῸΣ spurious.
See above, sec. 23.
NIC.EA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 909
such an act on the part of the Arians; and if the Arians had
done as he suggests, they would certainly have burnt the
Creed of Niczea itself, which contains their most express con-
demnation.
d. It is well-nigh superfluous to refute those who have
maintained that the Synod of Niczea lasted three years, and
who add that it must certainly have promulgated above
twenty canons during all that time. The Synod began and
ended in the year 325: it was after the close of it that the
Emperor Constantine celebrated his vicennalia." The supposi-
tion that the Council lasted for three years is a fable invented
subsequently by the Orientals; but even were it true, if the
Council really lasted for three years, one could not therefore
affirm that it must have promulgated a great number of
decrees.
e. The following passage from a letter of Pope Julius 1.
has been also made use of to prove that the Council of
Nica published more than twenty canons: “The bishops at
Nica rightly decided that the decrees of one council may be
revised by a subsequent one.” This letter is to be found in
the works of 5. Athanasius.” But Pope Julius 1. does not
say that the Nicene Fathers made a canon of their decision ;
on the contrary, he appears to consider that it was by their
example, in judging afresh the Arian question, already judged
at Alexandria, that the Nicene Fathers authorized these re-
visions.
J. When the Patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian, appealed
to Rome against the decision of the Robber-Synod of Ephesus,
Pope Leo the Great, in two letters addressed to the Emperor
Theodosius, appealed in his turn to a decree of the Council of
Niczea, to show that such appeals were permissible.? Cardinai
d’Aguirre immediately concludes that Pope Leo there quotes
a canon which is not among the twenty authentic ones. The
Cardinal did not see that Pope Leo here commits the same
mistake as Pope Zosimus, by quoting a canon of Sardica as
one of those passed at Nica.
1 The twentieth year of his reign. Upon the duration of the Council of
Nicea, cf. secs. 26 and 44.
2 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 22, Opp. i. 112, ed. Patav. 3 Epp. 48 and 44,
Zh
370 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
4. It is. less easy to explain these words of 3, Ambrose,
quoted by Baronius and Aguirre: Sed prius cognoscamus, non
solum hoe apostolwim de episcopo et presbytero statwisse, sed etiam
Patres in coneilio Niceno tractatus addidisse, neque clericum
quemdam debere esse, qui secunda conjugia sortitus.. An ex-
amination of this text shows, however, that S. Ambrose does
not attribute to the Council of Nicza a canon properly so
called; he uses only the expression tractatus. The Benedic-
tines of S. Maur, besides, say very reasonably on this passage
of S. Ambrose: “As Pope Zosimus mistook a canon of Sardica
for one of Niczea,so 8. Ambrose may have read in his collectio
of the Acts of Niczea some rule de digamis non ordinandis,
belonging to another synod, and may have thought that this
rule also emanated from the Council of Niczea.”
h. We have to examine an expression of 8. Jerome, which
it has been said will show that more than twenty canons
were promulgated at Nica. SS. Jerome says in his Prefatio
ad librum Judith:? Apud Hebreeos liber Judith inter agio-
grapha legitur, cujus auctoritas ad roboranda alla, que im con-
tentionem venvunt, minus idonea gudicatur. . . . Sed quia hune
librum Synodus Nicena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum
legitur computasse, acquievt postulationr vestree, etc. If we con-
clude from these words that the Fathers of Nicea gave a
canon of the genuine books of the Bible, we certainly draw
an inference which they do not sustain. The meaning seems
rather to be this: the Nicene Fathers quoted this book of
Judith, that is to say, made use of it as a canonical book, and
so in fact recognised it. In this way the Council of Ephesus
implicitly acknowledged the Epistle to the Hebrews, by ap-
proving of the anathemas levelled by Cyril against Nestorius,
in which this epistle is quoted as a book of the Bible.’ It is
true that, in some memorials left to us by the Council of Nicza,
we find no such quotation from the book of Judith; but the
difficulty does not lie there: the quotation may have been
made wird voce in the Council; and this fact may have been
laid hold of, and preserved in some document composed by a
τ Epist. ad Vercellensem episcopum, Opp. ed. Bened. iii. 1127.
3 Opp. x. 39 ed. Migne, i. 1170 ed. BB.
8 Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. l.c. 387, ἃ,
NICZA:: NUMBER OF THE CANONS, S7E
member of the Council.. Besides, 8. Jerome’ said only these
words, “legitur conyputasse,’ that is to say, we read that the
Council of Nicsa did-so. If the Council had really made a
canon on this subject, 8. Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius,
and others, would not have subsequently refused to reckon
the hook of Judith in the number of canonical books. ὃ.
Jerome himself in another passage’ is doubtful of the cano-
nicity of the book; he therefore can- have attached no ‘great
importance to what he said of the Council of Nicsea on the
subject of the book of Judith. Finally, the Council of Lao-
diceea, more recent than that of Nicza, in its sixtieth canon,
does not reckon the book of Judith among the canonical books:
such exclusion would have been utterly impossible if the pre-
tended canon had been really promulgated at Nica in 325.
ὦ. It has been attempted also to decide the controversy
now under consideration by the high authority of S. Augustine,
who in his 213th epistle (in earlier editions the 110th) says:
“ Even in the lifetime of Valerius, I was appointed coadjutor-
bishop in Hippo, not being aware that this had been pro-
hibited by the Council of Nica.’ It has been said—and
Cardinal d’Aguirre especially insisted—that this prohibition
is not to be found in the twenty canons; but he is mistaken:
the prohibition is there; it is very explicit in the eichth
canon.”
__ k, We proceed to an objection taken from Pope Innocent t.,
who says in his twenty-third epistle, that at Niczea it was for-
bidden that any one should be ordained priest who had served
in war after his baptism,’ . This prohibition, indeed, is not
to be found in the twenty Nicene canons; but an attentive
reading of Innocent 1.5. epistle leads us. to ask if Innocent
really considered. this prohibition as proceeding from the
Council of Nicwa. He says, in fact: “You know yourselves
the rules of Nicza about ordination, tamen aliquam partem,
que de ordinationibus est provisa, inserendam putavi.” It is
1 He says of the book of J udith in his Epistola ad Furiam: “Si cui tamen
placet volumen recipere,” Opp. i. 559, ed. Migne ; and Commentar. in AVI
cap. i. v. 5, 6, p. 1394, t. vi. ed. Migne.
* This canon ends with these words, ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῇ πόλει δύο ἐπίσκοποι ὦσιν.
Nansi, ii. 672.
* Mansi, iii, 1068 sq.
$732 HISTORY OF TIE COUNCILS.”
not known whether the two words aliqua pars ought to be
understood of a rule of Nica, or of a rule taken from
another synod, and treating of the same subject. Innocent
twice mentions this prohibition to ordain soldiers as priests:
once in the forty-third epistle,, where he in no way mentions
the Council of Nicsa: the second time in Ep. i. ο. 27 where
it is true that in the context there is reference to the Council
of Nica; but in the passage itself, where the Pope recalls
the prohibition, he does not rest upon the authority of that
Council. In the passage the word tem evidently means
secundo, and not that the rule following is a decree of Nicza.
We might even admit that Pope Innocent intended to quote
a Nicene rule, but that would prove nothing contrary to our
position. The words quoted by the Pope are those of a
Council of Turin, as has been thoroughly shown by Labbe.°
We must therefore conclude that Innocent made the same
mistake as his predecessor Zosimus.
I. Gelasius of Cyzicus gives nine constitutiones,’ exclusive
of the twenty authentic canons; and at the close of Book 11.
c. 29 he says explicitly, “ The bishops of Nica gave various
similar διατυπώσεις ;” hence it has been said that he refutes
our thesis. But these constitutiones are purely dogmatical
(λόγος διδασκαλικὸς) : therefore they are not canons, and could
not have increased the number to more than twenty; but—
and this is the principal point—they are most certainly
spurious: none of the ancient writers are acquainted with
them; no one among the moderns has endeavoured to defend
their historical value; most do not even mention them—as,
for instance, Tillemont and Orsi; and those who quote them
content themselves with denying their genuineness.’
m. According to Baronius and d’Aguirre, Socrates,’ the
1 Mansi, iii. 1046. 2 Mansi, iii. 1033.
3 Mansi, iii. 1069, ad marg. # Lib. ii. c. 30.
5 See Ittig. Hist. Concil. Nic. § 68, and the quotations accompanying that
history ; Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen, Leipz. 1780, Bd. i. S.
438. The second of these diatyposes is probably directed against the Euty-
chians, and consequently it may be considered as subsequent to the Council of
Nicea. Dorscheus has written an especial dissertation upon the fifth diatypose
(on the holy communion).
ὁ Socrat. 111, 20.
NICZA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS, 518
Greek historian of the Church, is erroneously represented as
having said that the Council of Niczea commanded the use
of the doxology thus worded, “ Glory be to the Father and
to the Son,’ in order to show the equality of the Father and
the Son; whilst the Arians proposed this form, “ Glory be
to the Father through the Son.” But in the said passage
Socrates simply affirms that there was one party at Antioch
which made use of the one form, and another which used the
other, and that the Arian Bishop Leontius tried to prevent
the praises of God being sung according to the παράδοσις of
the Council of Nica, that is, to prevent their using forms
in accordance with the Nicene doctrine. Valesius also re-
marks, when translating that passage from Socrates, that. the
Greek historian nowhere says what Baronius and Aguirre
attribute to him.1 We know, indeed, that ‘before the rise of
the Arian heresy the Fathers of the Church often altered the
form of the doxology, sometimes saying “ by the Son,’ some-
times “and to the Son.” But as the Arians would not use
the form “and to the Son,” and persisted in saying “ by the
Son,” the orthodox in their turn gained the habit of saying
almost exclusively, without there being any rule on the sub-
ject, “and to the Son.” If there had been a rule, the orthodox
bishops would not long subsequently have allowed the form
“by the Son” to have been used.
nm. Pope Leo appealed repeatedly to the Council of Nica
to show that the Patriarch of Constantinople wrongfully laid
claim to a precedency over the Patriarchs of Alexandria and
Antioch.? Aguirre hence concludes that the Pope must have
had Nicene decrees before him which are not among the
twenty canons recognised as authentic. It is easy to reply
that S. Leo refers only to the sixth canon of Nica, which
maintains the Archbishops of Alexandria and Antioch in their
rights, and consequently implicitly forbids Bag other cee
to be Phe above them..
1 οἵ Ludovici, Prefatio ad Ittig. Hist. Concil. Nic.
2 Vel. ΜΕΝ, Denkwirdigkeiten, Bd. iv. Thl. i. 8. 426 ἢ ; j Ittig. Le
a Ot. τ
3 Epp. 104, —, 106, ed Ballerin. vol. a Epp 78, 79, 80, ed. - Quesnel ee
538, 54, 55). Hibs tthe ‘
374 ἦν HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, |
o. Notwithstanding the efforts of Cardinal d’Aguirre, it
is impossible to make a serious objection οἵ. what was said
by the second Council of Arles, held about the year 452,
This Council:expresses itself thus: magna synodus antea con-
stituit—that, whoso falsely accused another of great crimes
should be:excommunicated to.their life’s end.?. It is perfectly
true, as has been remarked, that the twenty canons of Nicaea
contain no such rule; but it. has been forgotten that, in: mak-
ing use of the expression magna synodus, the second Council
of Arles. does not mean the Council of Nicaea: it has in view
the first Council of Arles, and particularly the fourteenth
canon of that Council.’
‘ p. The objection drawn from the Synod of Ephesus‘ is
still only specious. The Council of Ephesus relies upon ἃ
decision of the Council of Niczea in maintaining that the:
Church οἵ Cyprus is independent of the Church of Antioch.
Aguirre thought that this was not to be found in the twenty
canons; but it is not so, for the Council of Ephesus certainly
referred to the sixth canon of Nicza when it said: “The
¢eanon of the Fathers of Nica guaranteed to each Church
the rank which it previously hela.”
g. Again, it has been said that Atticus Bishop of ‘Con:
sieaitina pd alludes to a canon not found among the twenty,
when he indicates very precisely in a letter who. those are,
according to the rule of the Council of Nicea, who ought to
have litere formate.’ But the document bearing the name
of Bishop Atticus was unknown to.the whole of antiquity ;
10 belongs only to the middle: ages, and has certainly no
greater value than the pseudo-Isidorian documents.’ But if
this memorial were authentic (Baronius accepts it as such *),
it would prove nothing against our position; for Baronius.
himself tells us that the: Fathers of Nicza deliberated very
secretly upon the form that the literw formate ought to take,
but made no canon upon the subject.
7. The last witness of Aguirre has no greater sndehty It
© 1 Can, 24, ‘\ Hard. ii. 775.. 3 Of Ludovici, Pray, ad Ittig le.
4 Actio vii. Mansi, iv. 1468; Hard. i. 1620. 5 Sec. v.
«© Hands ν, 1458... 2° . .7 Tillemont, Mémoires, vi. 288, Ὁ,
* Adann. 325, n. 162 sq. 9 Cf. Natal. Alex. lc. p. 881... 3
NICEHA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 375
is an expression of S. Basil’s,’ who affirms that the Council
of Nicza made rules for the punishment of the guilty, that
future sins might be avoided. Now the canons of Nica
in our possession, as we shall see hereafter, authorize 8. Basil
to speak in this way.? Some other objections of less import-
ance not repeated by Aguirre might be noticed, but they have
been sufficiently exposed and refuted by Natalis Alexander.’
Sec. 42. Contents of the Nicene Canons.
After having determined the number of authentic canons
of the Council of Nicea, we must now consider more closely
their contents. The importance of the subject, and the
historical value that an original text always possesses, has
decided us to give the Greek text of the acts of the Council
(according to the editions of Mansi and of Bruns*), together
with a translation and a commentary intended to explain
their meaning.
Can. 1.
Ei τις ἐν νόσῳ ὑπὸ ἰατρῶν ἐχειρουργήθη, ἢ ὑπὸ βαρβάρων
ἐξετμήθη, οὗτος μενέτω ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ" εἰ δέ τις ὑγιαίνων ἑαυτὸν
ἐξέτεμε, τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ἐξεταζόμενον πεπαῦσθαι προ-
σήκει, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ δεῦρο μηδένα τῶν τοιούτων χρῆναι προάγεσθαι"
ὥσπερ δὲ τοῦτο πρόδηλον, ὅτι περὶ τῶν ἐπιτηδευόντων τὸ πρᾶγμα.
καὶ τολμώντων ἑαυτοὺς ἐκτέμνειν εἴρηται: οὕτως εἴ τινες ὑπὸ
1 Ep. 125, n. 3, vol. iii. p. 216, ed. BB.
2 Cf. Ludovici, Pref. ad Ittig. lc.
3 Natal. Alex. 1.6. p. 387 566.
4 Mansi, Collectio Concil. ii. 668 544. ; Bruns, Canones apostolorum et con-
ciliorum, sec. iv.-vii. Berol. 1839, i. 14 sqq. Scipio Maffei discovered in the
last century, in a manuscript of Verona, a very ancient Latin translation of
the canons of Nica different from those already known; for instance, that
of Dionysius the Less, and of the Prisca. It is printed in the edition of the
Works of S. Leo the Great by the ee iii, 582 sqq., and Mansi, l.c. vi.
1195 sqq.
5. Among the commentaries. which we have used in making ours, we shall
quote those which were composed in the middle ages by the Greeks Balsamon,
Zonaras, and Aristenus; they are printed in Beveridge, Synodicon, sive Pandecte
canonum, Oxon. 1672, i. 58 sqq. Beveridge has also edited one of them in
the appendix of the second volume of his work, p. 44sqq. Van Espen has
done the same work in his Commentarius in canones et decreta, etc., Colon.
1755, Ὁ. 85 544. ; as well as Professor Herbst in the Tid. Theol. Quartalschrift
1822, S. 30 if
376 το HISTORY-OF THE COUNCILS. “:
βαρβάρων ἢ δεσποτῶν . εὐνουχἴσθησαν, εὑρίσκοιντο δὲ ἄλλως
ἄξιοι, τοὺς τοιούτους εἰς κλῆρον προσίεται ὁ κανών,
“Jf a. man has been mutilated by physicians during sick-
ness, or by barbarians, he may remain among the clergy;
but if a man in good health has mutilated himself, he must
resign his post after the matter has been proved among the
clergy, and in future no one who has thus acted should be
ordained. But as it is evident that what has just been said
only concerns those who have thus acted with intention, and
have dared to mutilate themselves, those who have been made
eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters will be allowed,
conformably to the canon, to remain among the clergy, if in
other respects they are worthy.”
This ordinance of Nicza agrees well men the directions
contained in the apostolic canons 21-24 inclusive (20-23
according to another way of numbering them), and it is to
these apostolic canons that the Council makes allusion by the
expression ὁ κανών. It was not Origen alone who, a long
time before the Council of Nicza, had given occasion for such
ordinances: we know, by the first apology of S. Justin} that
a century before Origen, a young man had desired to be muti-
lated by physicians, for the purpose of completely refuting
the charge of vice which the heathen brought against the
worship of Christians. §. Justin neither praises nor blames
this young man : he only relates that he could not obtain the
permission of the civil authorities for his. project, that he
renounced his intention, but nevertheless remained virgo all
his life. It is very probable that the Council of Nica was
induced by some fresh similar cases to renew the old in-
junctions; it was perhaps the Arian Bishop Leontius who
was the principal cause of it. 5. Athanasius, and after
him Theodoret® and Socrates, relate in fact that Leontius, a
Phrygian by birth, and a clergyman at Antioch, lived with a
subintroducta named Eustolion; and as he could not separate
1 Justin. Apol, c. 29.
τ᾿ ? Athanasius, Apologia de Suga sua, 5 2. 26; and Historia Arianorum ad
monachos, c. 28. !
3 Théoedorét, Hist. Eccl. ii. 24. 0°. 4 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. ii. 26. har
᾿ “6 Theodoret, Uc, ii. 10, rok Ne :
NICEA ἢ CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 377
himself from her, and wished to prevent her leaving him,
mutilated himself. His bishop, Eustathius, had deposed him,
more especially for this last act; but the Emperor Constan-
tine afterwards made him by force Bishop of Antioch.
Leontius became afterwards one of the most bitter opponents
of S. Athanasius. This ordinance of Nica was often renewed
in force by subsequent synods and by bishops; and it has
been inserted in the Corpus juris canoniei.
Can. 2.
᾿Επειδὴ πολλὰ ἤτοι ὑπὸ ἀνάγκης ἢ ἄλλως ἐπειγομένων τῶν
ἀνθρώπων ἐγένετο παρὰ τὸν κανόνα τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν, ὥστε
ἀνθρώπους ἀπὸ ἐθνικοῦ βίου. ἄρτε προσελθόντας τῇ πίστει, καὶ
ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ κατηχηθέντας εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τὸ πνευματικὸν λουτρὸν
ἄγειν, καὶ ἅμα τῷ βαπτισθῆναι προσάγειν εἰς ἐπισκοπὴν ἢ
πρεσβυτερεῖον: καλῶς ἔδοξεν ἔχειν, τοῦ λοιποῦ μηδὲν τοιοῦτο
γίνεσθαι" καὶ γὰρ καὶ χρόνου δεῖ τῷ κατηχουμένῳ, καὶ μετὰ τὸ
βάπτισμα δοκιμασίας πλείονος: σαφὲς γὰρ τὸ ἀποστολικὸν
γράμμα τὸ λέγον Mi νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα
ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου" εἰ δὲ προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου
ψυχικόν τι ἁμάρτημα εὑρεθῇ περὶ τὸ πρόσωπον, καὶ ἐλέγχοιτο
ὑπὸ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων, πεπαύσθω ὁ τοιοῦτος τοῦ κλήρου" ὁ
δὲ παρὰ ταῦτα ποιῶν, ὡς ὑπεναντία τῇ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ θρασυ-
νόμενος, αὐτὸς κινδυνεύσει περὶ τὸν κλῆρον."
“Seeing that many things, either from necessity or on
account of the pressure of certain persons, have happened
contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, so that men who have
but just turned from a heathen life to the faith, and who
have only been instructed during a very short time, have been
brought to the spiritual laver, to baptism, and have even
been raised to the office of priest or bishop, it is right that
in future this should not take place, for time is required for
sound instruction in doctrine, and for further trial after
baptism. For the apostolic word is clear, which says:°
10. 7, Dist. lv. ; and.c. 3, x. (i. 20).
. 3 Zoéga has discovered an ancient Coptic translation of this canon; it was
published at Paris in 1852 by Pitra, in his Spicilegium Solesmense, 1. 525.
This Coptic translation does not ΤΣ agree with the ca Greek text, but
entirely with its meaning.
31 Tim. iii 6
378 _ .WISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
‘Not a novice, lest through pride he fall into condemnation,
and into the snare of the devil” If hereafter a cleric is
suilty of a grave offence, proved. by two or three witnesses,
he must resign his spiritual office. Any one who acts against
this ordinance, and ventures to be disobedient to this great
Synod, is in danger of being expelled from the clergy.”
It may be seen by the very text of this canon, that it was
already forbidden to. baptize, and to raise to the episcopate or
to the priesthood any one who had only been a catechumen
for a short time: this injunction is in fact contained in the
eightieth (seventy-ninth) apostolical canon; and according to
that, it would be older than the Council of Nica. There
have been nevertheless certain cases in which, for urgent
reasons, an exception has been made to the rule of the Council
of Nicsa,—for instance, that of S. Ambrose. The canon of
Niczea does not seem to allow such an exception, but it might
be justified by the apostolical canon which says, at the close:
“Tt is not right that any one who has not yet been proved
should be a teacher of others, unless by a peculiar divine
erace.” The expression of the canon of Nicea, ψυχικὸν te
ἁμάρτημα, is not easy to explain: some render it by the
Latin words animale peccatum, believing that the Council has
here especially in view sins of the flesh; but, as Zonaras has’
said, all sins are ψυχικὰ ἁμαρτήματα. We must then under-
stand the passage in question to refer to a capital and very
serious offence, as the penalty of deposition annexed to it
points out.
These words have also given offence, ef δὲ προϊόντος τοῦ
χρόνου; that is to say, “It is necessary henceforward,” etc.,
understanding that it is only those who have. been too quickly
ordained who are threatened with deposition in case they
are guilty of crime; but the canon is framed, and ought to be
understood, in a general manner: it applies to all other clergy-
men, but it appears also to point out’ that greater .severity
should be shown towards those who have been too quickly
ordained. Others have explained the passage in this manner:
“Tf it shall become known that any one who has been too
quickly ordained was guilty before his baptism of amy serious
1 Theodor. Hist. Eccl. iv. 6; Rufin. Hist. Eecl. ii 11.
NICZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 379
offence, he ought to be deposed.” This is the interpretation
given by Gratian,’ but it must be confessed that such a transla-
tion does violence to the text. This is, I believe, the general
sense of the canon, and of this passage in particular: “ Hence-
forward no one shall be baptized or ordained quickly. As to
those already in orders (without any distinction between those
who have been ordained in due course and those who have
been ordained too quickly), the rule is that they shall be
deposed if they commit a serious offence. _ Those who are
cuilty: of disobedience to this great Synod, either by allowing
themselves to be ordained or even by ordaining others pre-
maturely, are threatened with deposition ipso facto, and for
this fault alone.” We consider, in short, that the last words
of the canon may be understood as well of the ordained as of
the ordainer,
CAN. 3 |
Phony Sieooer καθόλου ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος μήτε ἐπισκόπᾳ
μήτε πρεσβυτέρῳ μήτε διακόνῳ μήτε ὅλως τινὶ τῶν ἐν TE
κλήρῳ ἐξεῖναι συνείσακτον ἔχειν, πλὴν εἰ μὴ ἄρα μητέρα ἢ
aaah foe ἢ θείαν, ἢ ἃ μόνα wporent πᾶσαν ὑποψίαν διαπέ.
φευγε."
-“The great Synod absolutely forbids, and it cannot be per-
mitted to either bishop, priest, or any other cleric, to have in
his house a συνείσακτος (subintroducta), with the exception of
his mother, slater; aunt, or such other oadsaers as are. free from
all suspicion.”
In the first ages of the Church, some Ghritions clereymen
and laymen, contracted a sort of spiritual marriage with un-
married persons, so that they lived together; but there was
not a sexual, but a spiritual connection between them, for
their mutual spiritual advancement.’ They were known by
the name of συνείσακτοι, ἀγαπηταὶ, and sorores. That which
began in the spirit, however, in many’ cases ended in the flesh ;
on which account the Church very stringently forbade such
1 Corpus jur. can. α. i. Dist. 48.
2 Zoéga has discovered a Coptic translation of this canon also: it was inserted
by Pitra in the ER οὐη φοραίς i. 526. The Greek ‘canon is. very
froely translated in it. i
3 Cf. the sermon of S. Cryst cin, πρὸς ποὺς ἔχοντας nubian ΜΌΝΑ
and Beveridge, J.c. p. 46, Ὁ.
380 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
unions, even with penalties more sevére than those with
which she punished concubinage: for it happened that Chris-
tians who would haye recoiled from the idea of concubinage
permitted themselves to form one of these spiritual unions,
and in so doing fell. It is very ccrtain that the canon of
Nicea forbids this species of union, but the context shows
moreover that the Fathers had not these particular cases in
view alone; and the expression συνείσακτος should be under-
stood of every woman who is introduced (συνείσακτος) into
the house of a clergyman for the purpose of living there. If
by the word συνείσακτος was only intended the wife in this
spiritual marriage, the Council would not have said, any
συνείσακτος except his mother, etc.; for neither his mother
nor his sister could have formed this spiritual union with
the cleric. The injunction, then, does not merely forbid the
συνείσακτος in the specific sense, but orders that “no woman
must live in the house of a cleric, unless she: be his mother,”
etc. Because this interpretation presents itself naturally to
the mind, several ancient authors have read in the Greek
text ἐπείσακτον instead of συνείσακτον ; for instance, the Em-
peror Justinian in his anne 123 (6. 29), and Rufinus ‘in his
translation of the canon. Several councils, amongst others
the second of Tours (c. 11) and the fourth of Toledo (c. 42),
have also received this reading, but wrongly, as is proved by
the best Greek manuscripts. Beveridge, 8. Basil, and Diony-
sius the Less read συνείσακτον with us. On the meaning of
the last words of this canon, it has been doubted whether the
Council allows all persons who are free from suspicion to live
in the house of a clerk, as it is understood by Gratian ;? or
whether the true translation is this: “And his sisters and
aunts cannot remain unless they be free from all suspicion.”
Van Espen* explains the text in this manner, but this inter-
pretation does not seem altogether in accordance with the
original. | | |
1 Hist. Eccl. i. 6. .* Beveridge, U.c. pp. 45 and 46,
: 3 Corpus jur..can. c. 16, Dist. 82, Interdixit per omnia sancta synodus, non
episcopo, non presbytero, non diacono, vel alicui omnino, qui in clero est, licere
subintroductam habere mulierem, nisi forte aut matrem, aut Sor ‘orem, aut, ΜΌΝΕ
aut etiam eas idoneas personas, que fugiant suspiciones, rine ont.
41. p. 88. οἱ ab HE αὐ ὠς πο δ he
NICHA: CONTENTS OF TIIE CANONS. 81
Another question has been raised on this subject,—namely,
whether it supposes the marriage of priests, or whether it
orders celibacy, and then the real wives of clerics would be
included in the word συνείσακτοι. This last interpretation
is that of Bellarmin; but it is without foundation, for the
συνείσακτοι are here forbidden to all clerks, and we know that
at this period those in minor orders were permitted to marry.
In conclusion, it cannot be overlooked that this canon shows
that the practice of celibacy had already spread to a great
extent among the clergy; as even Fuchs’ confesses, and as
Natalis Alexander has also remarked.? The question of the
relation of the Council of Niczea to celibacy will be considered
when we come to the history of Paphnutius.
Can. 4.
᾿Επίσκοπον προσήκει μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐν TH
ἐπαρχίᾳ καθίστασθαι εἰ δὲ δυσχερὲς εἴη τὸ τοιοῦτο, ἢ διὰ
κατεπείγουσαν ἀνάγκην ἢ διὰ μῆκος ὁδοῦ, ἐξάπαντος τρεῖς ἐπὶ
τὸ αὐτὸ συναγομένους, συμψήφων γινομένων καὶ τῶν ἀπόντων καὶ
συντιθεμένων διὰ γραμμάτων, τότε τὴν χειροτονίαν ποιεῖσθαι"
τὸ δὲ κῦρος τῶν γινομένων δίδοσθαι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν τῷ
μητροπολίτηλ
“The bishop shall be appointed by all (the bishops) of
the eparchy (province); if that is not possible on account of
pressing necessity, or on account of the length of journeys,
three (bishops) at the least shall meet, and proceed to the
imposition of hands (consecration) with the permission of
those absent in writing. The confirmation of what is done
belongs by right, in each eparchy, to the metropolitan.”
The Church was not obliged in principle to conform itself
to the territorial divisions of the states or of the provinces in
establishing its own territorial divisions. If, however, it often
accepted these civil divisions as models for its own, it was to
facilitate the conduct of business, and to prevent any disrup-
1 Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen (Library of the Councils),
Leipzig 1780, Thi. i. 8. 392,
* Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. iv. Dissert. 19, Propos. ii. p. 392, ed.
Venet. 1778. ᾿
3. 566, in Pitra, Spicileg. Solesmense, i. 526 sq., a Coptic translation of this
canon newly discovered.
382 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
tion of received customs, Thus the apostles often passed
through the principal cities of one province for the purpose of
preaching the gospel there before entering another, and after-
wards they treated the faithful of that province as forming one
community. For instance, 8. Paul writes to the Church of God
at Corinth, and to all the faithful of Achaia:? he unites, then,
in his thoughts all the Christians of the province of Achaia,
and at the head of the Churches of that province he places
that of Corinth, which was its political capital. He addresses
in the same manner another of his letters “to the Churches of
the Galatians,” ? again uniting in his mind all the communities
of that civil province. The result of this action of the Church
was, that the bishops of the same province soon considered
that there was a certain bond between them, and the bishop of
the capital thus gained insensibly a sort of pre-eminence over his
colleagues in the province. This pre-eminence could only be
based in some cases on the civil importance of the capital ;
but it must not be forgotten that the civil capital was often
also the ecclesiastical, as being the first city in the province
in which a Christian Church was founded, from which the
gospel was made known to the other cities in the province.
It is especially the civil importance that the Synod of Antioch
of 341 had in view when it said, in its ninth canon: “The
bishops of each eparchy must understand that it is the bishop
of the metropolis (political capital) who has charge of the
business of the eparchy, because all meet at the metropolis to ©
transact their business.” The word eparchy here most cer-
tainly designates the civil province; and evidently the Synod
wished to make the civil divisions the basis of ecclesiastical
divisions. The Council of Nicza follows the same course: it
orders in this fourth canon that a bishop shall be chosen by
the other bishops of the whole eparchy (political province) ; and
in accordance with the ninth canon of the Synod of Antioch,
it decides that the metropolitan shall have charge of the
business of the eparchy. The first remark that there is: to
make on this canon is, then, to point out that the Council of
Niceea accepts the political division as the basis of the eccle-
22 Cor. i. I.
Gali ,
NIC“@A: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 383
siastical. division; but there were afterwards exceptions to
this rule.”
The second remark relates to the method of proceeding in
the election of bishops. In apostolic times the apostles them-
selves chose the bishops. During the period immediately
after apostolic times it was the disciples of the apostles, ἐλλό-:
γίμοι ἄνδρες, aS ὃ. Clement calls them. Thus such men as
Titus and Timothy nominated bishops; but the election had
to be approved by the whole community, συνευδοκησάσης τῆς
ἐκκλησίας πάσης, as ὃ. Clement says again ;? so that here a new
agent appears in the choice of a bishop: the community has
to make known whether it considers the person elected fitted
or unfitted for the charge. After the death of the disciples of
the apostles this practice changed; there were no longer any
bishops who had such an uncontested ascendency over the
others. <A letter of S. Cyprian tells us in a very clear manner
how episcopal elections and consecrations were then carried
on. “In almost all provinces,” he writes, “the business is
managed in this manner: The nearest bishops in the province
meet in the city for which the election is to be held. The
bishop is then elected plebe presente; the people are bound
to be present at the election, for singulorum vitam plenissime
novit. The episcopal dignity is after that conferred universe:
fraternitatis suffragio and episcoporum judicio.”* Beveridge
has explained this very important passage in the follow-
ing manner.* The bishops of the province choose their
future colleague, and the /raternitas—that is to say, the people
and the clergy of the city—decide whether the choice is
acceptable, whether the candidate is worthy of the episcopate.
It seems to me that Beveridge thus does violence to the
expression suffragio, and does not quite accurately translate
judicio. Suffragium is derived from sub and frango. It pro-
1 Cf. upon this question a learned and very acute article by Friedrich Maassen,
J. U. Dr., Der Primat des Bischofs von Rom und die alten Patriarchalkirchen
(the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the ancient patriarchal Churches).
Lin Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hieraschie, insbesondere zur Erléuterung des
sechsten Canons des ersten allg. Concils von Nicéa, Bonn 1853, 5. 1-13.
* Clementis Hpist. i. ad Corinth. c. 44; ed. Patrum apostol. by Hefele, ed. iii.
p. 116. 3 Epist. 68. δ ἢ σε p. 47,
δ [These etymological remarks are very doubtful, See White’s Dict.—Ep.]
384 τος TISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
perly means a fragiment—a shred or scrap—and refers to the
shell which the ancients used for voting in the assemblies of
the people. This expression, then, ought here to signify that
the people, the community, had the right of voting, but that
the right of deciding—the judiciwm—was reserved to the
bishops of the province. Van Espen gives the same explana-
tion that we do in his canon law.’ The fraternitas, he says—
that is to say, the clergy and people of the community—
who are interested in the choice had the right of presentation ;
the bishops had afterwards to decide. They had then the
principal part to perform. In certain cases the bishops elected
and consecrated a candidate sine previa plebis electione—for
instance, when the people would undoubtedly have made a
bad choice. As it was by the judiciwm of the bishops that
the new bishop was appointed, so it was also their duty to
consecrate the newly elected.
The Council of Nicza thought it necessary to define by
precise rules the duties of the bishops who took part in these
episcopal elections. It decided, (a) that a single bishop of
the province was not sufficient for the appointment of another ;
(Ὁ) three at the least should meet, and (c) they were not to
proceed to election without the written permission of the
absent bishops; it was necessary (d) to obtain afterwards the
approval of the metropolitan. The Council thus confirms the
ordinary metropolitan division, in its two most important
points, namely, the nomination and ordination of bishops, and
the superior position of the metropolitan. The third point
connected with this division—namely, the provincial synod
——will be considered under the next canon. :
Meletius was probably the occasion of this canon. It may
be remembered that he had nominated bishops without the
concurrence of the other bishops of the province, and without.
the approval of the metropolitan of Alexandria, and had thus
occasioned a schism. This canon was intended to prevent
the recurrence of such abuses. The question has been
raised” as to whether the fourth canon speaks only of the
choice of the bishop, or whether it also treats of the consecra-
1 Pp. i. tit. 13, n. 10.
*Cf. Van Espen, Commentarius in canones, etc., p. 89.
NICEZA!: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 885
tion of the newly elected. We think, with Van Espen, that
it treats equally of both,—as well of the part which the
bishops of the province should take in an episcopal election,
as of the consecration which completes it.
The Council of Nicza had a precedent in the first apostolic
canon, and in the twentieth canon of Arles, for the establish-
ment of this rule. The canon of Nica was afterwards in
its turn reproduced and renewed by many councils——by that
of Laodicea (c. 12), of Antioch (c. 19), by the. fourth Synod of
Toledo (¢, 19), the second of Nicza (c. 13): it is also repro-
duced in the Codex Heclesiw Afric. (c. 13). It has been put
into execution in the Greek Church as well as in the Latin
Church, and inserted in all collections of ecclesiastical laws,
especially in the Corpus juris canonici}
It has been, however, interpreted in different ways. The
Greeks had learnt by bitter experience to distrust the inter-
ference of princes and earthly potentates in episcopal elections.
Accordingly, they tried to prove that this canon of Nica
took away from the people the right of voting at the nomina-
tion of a bishop, and confined the nomination exclusively to
the bishops of the province. In order to obtain a solid ground
for this practice, the seventh CEcumenical Council held at
Nica (c. 3) interpreted the canon before us in the sense that
a bishop could be elected only by bishops; and it threatens
with deposition any one who should attempt to gain, by
means of the temporal authority, possession of a bishopric?
One hundred years later, the es C(icumenical Council en-
forces the same rule, and decides,’ in accordance “ with former
councils,” that a weep must not be elected except by the
cétlege of bishops* The Greek commentators, Balsamon and
sien: therefore, only followed the example of these two great
Councils in affirming that this fourth canon of Nicea takes
away from the people the right previously possessed of voting
in the choice of bishops, and makes the election depend en-
tirely on the decision of the bishops ὅ of the province.
The Latin Church acted otherwise. It is true that with
it also the people have been removed from episcopal elections,
1 Can. c. 1, Dist. 64. 2 Hard. Collect. Concil. iv. 487.
3 Ὁ, 22: 4 Hard. v. 909, 5 Beveridge, l.c. p. 47.
2B
386 "HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS: ’
but this did not happen till later, about the eleventh ceritury ;*
and it was not the people only who were removed, but the
bishops of the province as well, and: the election was con-
ducted entirely by the clergy of the cathedral church? The
Latins then intérpreted the canon of Niczea as though it said
nothing of the rights of the bishops of the province in the
election of their future colleague (and it does not speak of :it
in a very-explicit manner), and as though it determined these
two points only: (a) that for the ordination of a bishop three
bishops at least are necessary; (ὦ) that the right of conjir-
mation tests with the metropolitan. In the Latin Church
this right of confirmation passed in course of time from the
metropolitans to the Pope, particularly by the concordats of
Aschaffenburg,
Can. 5.
Περὶ τῶν ἀκοινωνήτων γενομένων, εἴτε τῶν ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ εἴτε
ἐν Naik τάγματι, ὑπὸ τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν ἐπισκόπων
κρατείτω ἡ γνώμη κατὰ τὸν Kavova τὸν διαγορεύοντα, τοὺς ὑφ᾽
ἑτέρων ἀποβληθέντας ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων μὴ προσίεσθαι. ἐξεταζέσθω δὲ,
μὴ μικροψυχίᾳ ἢ φιλονεικίᾳ ἤ τινι τοιαύτῃ ἀηδίᾳ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου
ἀποσυνάγωγοι γεγέννηται. ἵνα οὖν τοῦτο τὴν πρέπουσαν ἐξέτασιν
λαμβάνῃ, καλῶς ἔχειν ἔδοξεν, ἑκάστου ἐνιαυτοῦ. καθ᾽ ἑκάστην
ἐπαρχίαν δὶς τοῦ ἔτους συνόδους γίνεσθαι, ἵνα κοινῇ πάντων τῶν
ἐπισκόπων τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναγομένων, τὰ τοιαῦτα
ζητήματα ἐξετάζοιτο, καὶ οὕτως οἱ ὁμολογουμένως προσκεκρου-
κότες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ κατὲ λόγον ἀκοινώνητοι παρὰ πᾶσιν εἶναι
δόξωσι, μέχρις ἂν τᾷ κοινῷ τῶν ἐπισκόπων δόξῃ τὴν φίλαν-
θρωποτέραν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐκθέσθαν ψῆφον" αἱ δὲ σύνοδοι γινέσ-
θωσαν, μία μὲν πρὸ τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς, ἵνα waons μικροψυχίας
ἀναιρουμένης τὸ δῶρον καθαρὸν προσφέρητὼν τῷ Θεῷ, δευτέρα
δὲ περὶ τὸν τοῦ μετοπώρου καιρόν ὦ
“As regards the excommunicated, the sentence passed
by the bishops of each province shall have the force of law,
in conformity with the canon which says: He who has been
excommunicated by some shall not be admitted by others.
1 Van Espen, Jus ecclesiastic. P. i. tit. 18, c. 1, n. 5.
2Van Espen, l.c. c. 2, n. 1, 2, 3.
8 Cf. c. 8; Dist. 64; ο. 20, 32, 44, x. de elect. (i. 6).
4(f. in the Spicil. Solesm. a Coptic translation of this canon,
NIC@ZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 384
Care must, however, be taken to see that the bishop has
not ‘passed this sentence of excommunication from narrow-
mindedness, from a love of contradiction, or from some feeling
of hatred. In order ‘that such an examination may take
place, it has appeared good to order that in each province a
synod shall be held twice a year, composed of all the bishops
of the province: they will make all necessary inquiries that each
may see that the sentence of excommunication has been justly
passed on account, of some determined disobedience, and until
the assembly of bishops may be pleased to pronounce a milder
judgment on them. ‘These synods are to be held, the one before
Lent, in order that, having put away all low-mindedness, we may
present a pure offering to God, and the second in the autumn.”
As we have already remarked, the Council in this canon
again takes as a basis divisions by metropolitan provinces, by
instituting provincial synods; and it lays down for them one
part of the business which should occupy them.
Before the Council of Nicza, ecclesiastical law had already
forbidden that any one who had been excommunicated should
be admitted by another bishop; the twelfth (thirteenth) apos-
tolical canon even threatens a bishop who should do so with
excommunication. This rule of the Council of Nica, that a
sentence of excommunication passed by a bishop should be
examined by a provincial synod which had the right to annul
it, is found, if not literally, at least in sense, in the thirty-
sixth apostolic canon (thirty-eighth), which says that a pro-
vincial synod should decide those ecclesiastical questions which
are in dispute. This same apostolical canon orders very ex-
plicitly that two provincial synods shall be held every year,
‘but it does not appoint the same seasons as the canon of the
Council of Nica. It might be supposed at first sight, that
according to the ordinance of Nica, a provincial synod is
only required to make inquiries about the force of sentences
of excommunication which have been passed; but it may be
seen that the CZcumenical Council held at Constantinople
has correctly explained this canon,’ in saying that it entrusts
the provincial Council with the care of examining into the
whole affairs of the province.
1C. 2
388 * ‘HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS
Gelasius has given, in his history of the Council of Nica,
the text of the canons passed by the Council; and it must be
noticed that there is here a slight difference between his text
and ours. Our reading is as follows: “ The excommunication
continues to be in force until it seem good to the assembly of
bishops (τῷ κοινῷ) to soften it.” Gelasius, on the other hand,
writes: μέχρις ἂν τῷ κοινῷ ἢ TO ἐπισκόπῳ, K.T.r., that is to
say, “ until it seem good to the assembly of bishops, or to the
bishop (who has passed the sentence),” etc. . . . Dionysius the
Less has also followed this variation, as his translation of the
canon shows.” It does not change the essential meaning of
the passage ; for it may be well understood that the bishop
who has passed the sentence of excommunication has also the
right to mitigate it. But the variation adopted by the Prisca®
alters, on the contrary, the whole sense of the canon: the
Prisca has not τῷ κοινῷ, but only ἐπισκόπῳ : it is in this
erroneous form that the canon has passed into the Corpus juris
cans The latter part of the canon, which treats of provincial
councils, has been inserted by Gratian.’
CAN. 6.
\ A / J , ’
Τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω τὰ ἐν Αὐγύπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ
, i \ > / ᾽ν Pd ,
Πενταπόλει, ὥστε τὸν ’AdeEavopelas ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων
, \ / \ a ς a
ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ TO ἐν TH “Pawn ἐπισκόπῳ τοῦτο
e \ r
σύνηθές ἐστιν' ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ ᾿Αντιόχειαν καὶ ἐν ταῖς
», b] 7] Ν an / na 3 ’ ΄
ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις τὰ πρεσβεῖα σώζεσθαι ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις" καθό-
, lal Ὁ ’ “
λου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης τοῦ μητροπο-
Ν -“
λίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος, τὸν τοιοῦτον ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος ὥρισε
na > / An
μὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσκοπον" ἐὰν μέντοι TH κοινῇ πάντων ψήφῳ,
/ \ / / a
εὐλόγῳ οὔσῃ καὶ κατὰ κανόνα ἐκκλησιαστικὸν, δύο ἢ τρεῖς
/ a
δι’ οἰκείαν φιλονεικίαν ἀντιλέγωσι, κρατείτω ἡ τῶν πλειόνων
ψῆφος."
1 Mansi, ii. 894, 2 Mansi, ii. 679. 3 Mansi, vi. 1127. ,
4C. 73, causa xi. quest. 3. 5C. 3, Distinct. xviii.
The first part of this canon, written in Coptic, is found with a Latin trans-
lation in Pitra’s Spicileg. Solesmense, i. 528. The Monitwm (p. 512), and the
note 7 of p. 536, show that Pitra attaches great importance to the Coptic text ;
but that is because this text supports the theories of the author. For ourselves,
we are unable to see how they are supported by this more than by the Greek
text.
NICHA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 389
“The old customs in use in Egypt, in Libya, and in Pen-
tapolis, shall continue to exist, that is, that the bishop of
Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these (provinces) ;
for there is a similar relation for the Bishop of Rome. The
rights which they formerly possessed must also be preserved
to the Churches of Antioch and to the other eparchies (pro-
vinces). This is thoroughly plain, that if any one has become
a bishop without the approval of the metropolitan, the great
Synod commands him not to remain a bishop. But when the
election has been made by all with discrimination, and in a
manner conformable to the rules of the Church, if two or
three oppose from pure love of contradiction, the vote of the
majority shall prevail.”
1. The fourth and fifth canons had determined the rights
of provincial councils and of ordinary metropolitans ; the sixth
canon’ is taken up with the recognition and regulation of
an institution of a higher order of the hierarchy. It is most
clear from the words of the canon, that the Synod had no
intention of introducing anything new. It desires that the
ancient tradition should be preserved, by which the Bishop of
Alexandria, had jurisdiction over Egypt (in the narrower sense
of the word), Libya, and Pentapolis.
It is very evident that it is an excentional position that had
been already given to the Bishop of Alexandria, which is recog-
nised and ratified by the Council. ‘The Bishop of Alexandria
had not alone under his jurisdiction one civil province, like
the other metropolitans, of whom the fourth canon has already
treated: he had several provinces depending upon him,
(properly so called), and to the west two other provinces, Libya
(Libya sicca vel inferior) and Pentapolis, or Cyrenia (situated
to the west of Libya, which separates it from Egypt properly
so called), There is, of necessity, attached to these provinces
the Thebais, or Upper Egypt, which at the time of the Council
of Niceea was certainly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Alexandria, Our canon does not specially name it, because it
1 Phillips has given, in his Kirchenrecht (Canon Law), Bd. ii. 5, 35, a list of
the works written on this sixth canon of Nicea: they are very numerous..
That of Dr. Fr. Maassen may ke also added, which we have already called atten-.
tion to. ;
390 . ° HISTORY OF THE COUNCIIS.
includes it in Egypt, whose limits are not, as may ‘be seen,
very exactly determined by the Fathers of Nicwa.’ The four
provinces here named formed, at the time of the Synod, the
diocese (political division) of Egypt, or Egypt taken in its
largest signification ; some time after the diocese was divided
into six provinces!!Pentapolis (Libya superior), Libya inferior,
Thebais, Egypt, Augustamnica (the eastern part of Egypt), and
Arcadia or. ‘Eptanomis (Middle Egypt).
These explanations prove that’ the sense of the first words
of the canon is as follows: “ This ancient right is assigned to
the Bishop of Alexandria, which places under his jurisdittion
the whole diocese of Egypt.” It is without any reason, then,
that the French Protestant Salmasius (Saumaise), the Anglican
Beveridge, and the Gallican Launoy, try to show that the
Οδυμοη Ἢ of Νίοα granted to the oe of Alexandria only
the rights of ordinary metropolitans.
But since it is evident that an exceptional position is ap-
pointed for him, we must now ask in what this position con-
sisted. Two cases here present themselves :—
a. The four civil provinces, Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis, and
Thebais, might be united into a single ecclesiastical province,
of which the Bishop of Alexandria would be declared the sole
metropolitan. ‘This supposition has been adopted by Van
Espen? :
b. Or else each one of these civil provinces might form
an ecclesiastical province, and have its metropolitan, whilst
the Archbishop of Alexandria (who was metropolitan of the
province of Egypt, taken in its narrower signification) had a
certain ecclesiastical supremacy over the civil diocese, so that
the other metropolitans (that is to say, those of Pentapolis, of
Thebais, and of ee would be under his jurisdiction. At
‘1 See the dissertation in the essay by Maassen, already quoted, on das poli-
tisch-geographische Verhaltniss von Afgypten, Libyen und Pentapolis zur Zeit
des Concils von Nictia, 8. 30-39. }
3 See, on this question, the dissertation of Dupin, sixth canon concil. Nicani,
etc., in his work de antiqua Ecclesie disciplina, p. 65, ed. Mog.
3. Commentar. in Canones, étc., Colon. 1755, p. 91 54., in his Scholia to the
sixth canon of the Council of Nicea. This theory of Van Espen’ 8, which we
shall expuse further on, ‘has been also adopted by Wiltsch in his Kirchl. Geo-
graphie und Statistik, Bd. i. S. 180.
NICHA:?; CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 391
the time. of: the. ‘Council of Nicza there was no particular
title to describe the chief metropolitan, who was ΤῊ called
αὖ ἃ later period Patriarch or Exarch.’
᾿ς It seems to me beyond a doubt, that in: this canon thike’’ is
a question about that which was afterwards called the -patri-
archate of the Bishop of Alexandria ; that is to say, that he
had a certain recognised banienatiatl authority, not only over
several civil provinces, but also over several ecclesiastical pro-
vinces (which had their own metropolitan) : it is in this' sense
that Valesius? in earlier times, and in our days Phillips and
Maassen, have interpreted the sixth canon of Ni lczea. The
reasons for this explanation are :—
(a.).-The’ general rule, confirmed by the fourth canon of
the Council ‘of Nica,’ determined that each civil province
should be an ecclesiastical province as well, and that it should
have its metropolitan. Now nothing proves that Libya, Pen-
tapolis, and Thebais were an exception to this general ale,
and had no metropolitans of their own.
(8.) ‘According: to S, Epiphanius,* Meletius was dpyiatio-
κοπὸς of the province of Thebais; and according to the same
author,’ he had the: first. place® after the Archbishop of Alex-
andria, over all the bishops. of Egypt. Although the ‘title of
ἀρχιεπίσκοπος was not in use in the time of Meletius, Epi-
phanius does not hesitaté to make use of it in accordance
with the usage of his own time, and to show by it that he
considers Meletius as the metropolitan of the Thebais ;’ but
as, in his account of the ‘history of the Meletian schism, S.
1 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, Bd. ii. S. 37, says: Leo the Great was for the first
time saluted with the title of Patriarch at the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 ;
but the second Ecumenical Council, held in 381, had already used this word as
a personal title of honour, and as one that could be given to other bishops.
Ct. Neander, Kircheng. 2te Aufl. Bd. iii. S. 333; Dupin, de: antiqua Ecclesia
disciplina, Mogunt. 1788, p. 7 564.
2 Observationes écclesiastice in Socratem et Sozomenum, lib. iii. c. 1. These
observations. have been printed after the Annotationes on the Historia. Eecle-
éiastica of Sozomen, Ρ. 188 sqq..of the ed. of Mainz. |
° See, further back, the explanation of the fourth canon of Nicos,
4Epiph. Heres, 69, c. 8, p. 729, ed. Petay.
5. Epiph. Heres, 68, 0. 1, p. 717. .. :
“δ This must only he understood in an indeterminate sense.
7 Cf. Maassen, Uc. S. 21, note 12 a,
392 _.- HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
Epiphanius has made scrious mistakes, we do not, as we have
shown elsewhere,’ attach much importance to his testimony.
(y.) We find a letter of Synesius to Theophilus Archbishop
of Alexandria,’ in which he says, “ that S. Athanasius having
discovered in Siderius, formerly Bishop of Palebisca and
Hydrax, a capacity for higher functions, had translated him
to Ptolemais in Pentapolis, to govern the metropolitan church
there.” As this Synesius was Bishop of Ptolemais at the
beginning of the fifth century, his assertion, which bears wit-
ness to the fact that this city was at the time of 8S. Athana-
sius, and consequently at the time of the Council of Niczea, an
ecclesiastical metropolis, is of the greatest value. ;
(5.) Other passages of this letter of Synesius, in particular
the following passage, show that Ptolemais was in reality for-
merly an ecclesiastical metropolis: “ He was reproached with
not having sufficiently guarded the maternal rights of his city
(τὰ μητρῶα τῆς “πόλεως δίκαια), that is to say, the rights of
his metropolitan church, against the Bishop of Alexandria.” *
(e.) Synesius acted also repeatedly as metropolitan of Penta-
polis. He brought together the other bishops of the province,
and gave his consent to the choice of a new bishop; thus
making use of a right that the fourth canon of Niczea accorded
to a metropolitan.
(6. ) Finally, we may appeal to this Emperor Theodosius IL,
who, in a letter dated March 30, 449, gave orders to Bios:
curus Bishop of Alexandria to present himself at Ephesus for
the great Synod ° (that which was known later as the Latro-
cunium Ephesinum), with the ten metropolitans who belonged
to his diocese.’
It is, then, incontestable that the civil provinces of Egypt,
Libya, Pentapolis, and Thebais, which were all in subjection
to the Bishop of Alexandria, were also ecclesiastical provinces
with their own metropolitans; and consequently it is not
1 See the dissertation of Dr. Hefele on the Meletian schism, in the Kirchen-
lex. von Wetzer und Welte, Bd. vii. S. 39, and above, sec. 40.
2 Ep. 67. 3 Cf. Maassen, J.c. S. 20 ff. 4 Maassen, J.c. S. 22, note 15.
5 Maneken, Lc. S. 26-28.
6 The number of pranks provinces in | Egypt was then ten. Cf. Wiltsch,
$c. S. 188, 189.
7 Hard. ii, 71; Mansi, vi. 583,
NICSA!: CONTENTS OF TIIE CANONS, 393
the ordinary rights of metropolitans that the sixth canon of
Nicza confirms to the Bishop of Alexandria, but the rights of
@ superior metropolitan, that is, of a patriarch, We are able
to define in what these rights consisted :—
a, The Bishop of Alexandria ordained not only the metro-
politans who were subject to him, but also their suffragans ;
while the ordinary rule was, that the suffragans should be
ordained by their own metropolitans."
b. But the Bishop of Alexandria could only (as patriarch)
ordain those whose election had the consent of the immediate
metropolitan, that is, of the metropolitan in whose province he
found himself. The letter of Synesius again proves this, in
which he requests Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria? to conse-
crate the new Bishop of Olbia in Pentapolis. After making the
request, Synesius adds this phrase: “I moreover give my vote
for this man” (φέρω κἀγὼ τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ ψῆφον ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνδρα) ὃ
Finally, we shall see a little further on that this sixth
canon also decreed measures to prevent the rights of simple
metropolitans being completely absorbed in the privileges of
the patriarchs,
II. The sixth canon of Niczea acknowledged for the Bishop
of Antioch the rights which it had acknowledged for the
Bishop of Alexandria; that is, as it would be expressed at
a later period, the rights attached to a patriarchate. The
second canon of the Council of Constantinople, held in 381,
proves that the patriarchate of the Bishop of Antioch was
identical with the civil diocese of Oriens. This diocese of
Oriens contained,.according. to the Notitia dignitatum, fifteen
civil provinces: Palestina, Foenice, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus,
Arabia, Isauria Palestina salutaris, Palestina (11.), Foenice
Lybani, Eufratensis, Syria salutaris, Osrhoéna, Cilicia (ii.).4
Whatever might be the number of civil provinces that the
diocese of Oriens contained at the time of the Council of
Nicea, it is not less certain that, in the canon before «us, a
supremacy was acknowledged for the Bishop of Antioch, ex-
tending to several provinces which had their own metropolitans:
Thus, for example, Palestine acknowledged as its metropolitan
1 Maassen, lc. S. 24. _ 32 Epist. 76. 3 Cf. Maassen, lc. S..26..::
* Bocking, Notit. αἴσῃ, t. i. in part. orient. p. 9; Maassen,l.c. 5. 41... .-
394 - ° HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the Bishop of Ceesarea, as we shall’ see ‘in’ the seventh canon
of the Council of Nicza; but the metropolitan of Czesarea, in
his turn, was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, as
nis superior metropolitan (patriarch). S. Jerome says expressly
that these rights of the Church of Antioch proceeded’ from the
sixth canon of Nica, “in which it was ruled’ that Antioch
should be the general: metropolis ‘of all Oriens, and Cesarea
the particular metropolis of the province of Palestine (which
belonged to: Oriens).”* Pope Innocent 1. wrote to Alexander
Bishop of Antioch: “The Council of Nicéa has not established
the Church of Antioch over a province, but over a diocese. As,
then, in virtue of his exclusive authority, the Bishop of Antioch
ordains metropolitans, it is not allowed: that other bishops
should hold ordinations without his knowledge and consent.”?
‘These: passages show us: in what the rights of the metro-
politan: of Antioch consisted: (a) ‘He ordained: the metro-
politans immediately: (@) The other bishops, on the contrary,
were ordained by their metropolitan, yet by his permission ;
whilst, as we have seen further back, the patriarchs of Alex-
andria ordained immediately the suffragan bishops also.
III. For the support of its rule, the:Council:of Niczea points
out that the Bishop of Rome has also’rights analogous to those
which it acknowledges for the Bishop: of Alexandria (and for
the Bishop of Antioch). It is evident that the Council has
not in view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the
whole Church, but. simply his’ power as a patriarch; for only
in relation to this could any analogy be established between
Rome and Alexandria or Antioch. This i will be con-
sidered more in detail further on.
IV.’ After having confirmed’ the claim of the: three. eres
metropolitan cities of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch to
patriarchal rights, our canon adds: “The rights’ (πρεσβεῖα) of
the Churches in the other eparchies must also be preserved.”
The question is, What is here understood by the words, “the
Churches: of the other eparchies?” Salmasius. and ‘others
think Lae the yeaa in: ‘point here 1 is about ordinary’ eccle-
ὡς, Hifeton: “Ep. 61 ‘ad Paina: Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palestine
metropolis Csarea sit, et totius Orientis. Antiochia. Cf.. Maassen, dc. 8. re
3 Innocent 1. Xp. 18 ad Aléx. Antioch. Cf. Maassen, 1.6. S. 45..
NICMA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 2995
siastical provinces and their metropolitan cities ; but Valesius,"
Dupin,’ Maassen,? and others have maintained that this pas-
sage relates to the three superior eparchies (sensu eminenti) of
Pontus, proconsular Asia, and Thrace, which possessed similar
rights to those.of the patriarchal Churches of Rome, Alex-
andria,: and Antioch, and which later were usually called
exarchates. The metropolitan cities of these three eparchies,
sensu eninenti, were Ephesus for proconsular Asia, Czesarea in
Cappadocia for Pontus, and Heraclea (afterwards: Constanti-
nople) for Thrace. The Council of Constantinople, held in
331, speaks* of these three exceptional metropolitan. cities ;
and for my own part, I see no difficulty in believing that the
Council of Nicza also speaks of them in this sentence: “The
rights of the Churches must also be preserved in the other
eparchies ;” for (α) our canon does not speak of ordinary
eparchies (that is to say, of simple metropolitan cities), but of
those which have particular rights (apeoBeia). |
(8.) The word ὁμοίως shows that the Synod places these
eparchies in the same rank as the sees of Alexandria and
Antioch.
(y.) It is very true that the sixth canon does not: deter-
mine these other eparchies sensu eminenti; but as the second
canon of the Council of Constantinople (381) groups these
three sees of the eparchies of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace just
in the same way as the Council of Nica had grouped the
Churches of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, there can be no
doubt that the Council of Niczea had also in view y these three
eparchies sensu. eminentt.
(5.) This passage, taken from a letter of Theodoret t to. Pope
Flavian, may also be quoted: “ The Fathers of Constantinople
had (by this second canon) followed the example of. the
Fathers of the Council of Nicwea, and separated the dioceses
the one from the other.” It follows from this, according to
Theodoret, that the Synod of Nica had acknowledged as
ecclesiastical. provinces, distinct and governed ‘by a! superior
metropolitan, the dioceses of Pontus, ‘Asial and Thrace (as it had
done with regard to the dioceses of Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch) ; for, as the Council of Constantinople desired to
Ile, 21. p. 68. 3f.c. 8. 57 ἴ, 4Can. 2. 5 Epistola 86,
$96 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
separate the dioceses the one from the other, it is evidently
necessary that the limits of these dioceses should be known,
and that the three patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch should not be the only ones distinct.
V. The sixth canon proceeds: “It is plain enough, that if
any one has become a bishop without the approval of the
metropolitan, the great Synod (of Nica) does not allow him
to remain bishop.” By metropolitan, Valesius understands
patriarch, and explains the passage in this manner: “ With-
out the consent of the patriarch, a bishop should never be
instituted.” Dupin? and Maassen® think, on the contrary, that
the question is here that of an ordinary metropolitan, and
explain the sentence in this manner: “ In those ecclesiastical
provinces which form part of a patriarchate, care must be taken
to preserve the rights of the simple metropolitan, and for that
reason no person can be made a bishop without the consent
of his immediate metropolitan; that is to say, the patriarch
himself cannot ordain any one without the consent of the
metropolitan of the future bishop.”
This explanation shows why the Synod of Wiese repeats
in its sixth canon this sentence already inserted in the fourth:
“No one can be made a bishop without the consent of his
metropolitan.”
VI. According to what has been said, the end of the sixth
canon, “ When, from a mere spirit of contradiction, two or
three oppose an election which has been made by all, and
which is at the same time reasonable and in accordance with
the rules of the Church, the majority must prevail,” should
be explained in this manner: “ When any one has been
elected bishop by the majority of the clergy and of the bishops
of the province, and with the consent of the reap a sage ον and
of the patriarch, then,” ete,
VII. This sixth canon was possibly the result of the
Meletian schism; for, as it is a fact that these schismatics
slighted the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria, this confu-
sion probably decided the Synod of Niceea to define clearly
the rights of that bishop. :
_ VIII. It may now be seen how clear and intelligible the
1Cf. Maassen, lc. S.54f. » *heap.6&% - he 8. 62:
NIC“A: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 297
sense of this sixth canon is, and yet it has been the object
of the most wide-spread controversies.
1. The first question is, What is the value of the canon
before us with respect to the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy ?
And while some have desired to see in it a confirmation of the
doctrine of the Roman primacy, others have adduced it as a
weapon against the primacy of the Holy See.’ Phillips re-
marks with justice, in speaking of this canon: “ It is evident
that this canon cannot be used to demonstrate the primacy
of the Pope; for the Council of Nicza did not speak of the
primacy, which had no ΒΑΡ of being established or confirmed
by the Council of Niczea.”
It must not be forgotten that the Pope andieie in hir-
self several eublasicntiont dignities: he is bishop, metropolitan,
patriarch, and lastly, primate of the whole Church. Each
one of these dignities may be regarded separately, and that
is what the canon has done: it does not consider the Pope
as primate of the universal Church, nor as simple Bishop of
Rome; but it treats him as one of the great metropolitans,
who had not merely one province, but cereal under their
jurisdiction.
2. There has also been a question as to what extent was
given to this metropolitan diocese of Rome by the Council of
Nicza; but the very text of the canon shows that the Council
of Nicsa decided nothing on this point: it is content to
ratify and confirm the order of existing things. There has
been a great conflict of opinions to explain in what this order
of things consisted. The translation of this canon by Rufinus
has been especially an apple of discord® Ht ut apud Alex-
andriam et in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel {{16
Aigyptt vel hie suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem
gerat. In the seventeenth century this sentence of Rufinus
gave rise to a very lively discussion between the celebrated
1 France. Ant. Zaccaria has proved that this canon contains nothing contrary
to the primacy of the Holy See. Cf. Diss. de rebus ad histor. atque antiquitat.
Ecclesice pertinentibus, t. i. No. 6, Fulig. 1781. There appeared at Leipzig in
the Litt. Ztg. 1783, No. 34, a violent criticism on the work of Zaccaria.
2 Kirchenrecht, l.c. 8. 36.
3 Rufinus has, besides, divided this canon into two parte,
4 Rufini Hist. Eccl. i, (x.) 6.
398 . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
jurist Jacob Gothfried (Gothofredus) and his friend Salmasius
on one side, and the Jesuit Sirmond on the other. The great
prefecture of Italy, which contained about a third of. the
whole Roman Empire, was divided into four vicariates, among
which the vicariate of Rome was the first. At its head were
two officers, the prafectus wrbt and the vicarius urbis. The
prefectus wrbt exercised authority over the city of Rome, and
further in a suburban circle as far as the hundredth milestone.
The boundary of the vicarius urbis comprised ten provinces—
Campania, Tuscia with Ombria, Picenum, Valeria, Samnium,
Apulia with Calabria, Lucania, and Brutii, Sicily, Sardinia
and Corsica. Gothfried and Salmasius maintained, that by
the regiones suburbicarie the little territory of the prafectus
wrbt must be understood; whilst, according to Sirmond, these
words designate the whole territory of the vicarius urbis. In
our time Dr. Maassen has proved’ in his book, already quoted
several times, that Gothfried and Salmasius were right in
maintaining that, by the regiones suburbicarie, the little terri-
tory of the prafectus wrbt must be alone understood. But, on
the other hand, according to Maassen, it is a complete mis-
take to suppose the patriarchal power of the te pe of Rome
restricted to this little territory.
The sixth canon of Nicza proves that it was not so; for,
on comparing the situation of the two Churches of ‘Alexandvia
and of Rome, it evidently supposes that the patriarchate of
Rome extended over several provinces. In fact, the ten
provinces composing the territory of the vicarius urbis, and
which were hundreds of times larger than the regio suburbi-
caria, did not contain all the territory over which the autho-
rity of the Pope as patriarch extended; for, in our days,
Phillips has proved, by reference to the work of Benetti (} γύ-
vilegia S. Petri)? that the Bishop of Rome had the right of
ordaining bishops, and consequently the rights of a patriarch,
over other countries than those which are contained in the
ten provinces of the vicarius urbis® If the question is put
in this way, it must be said, either that Rufinus does not
1.6. 8. 100-110, 3 Vol. iv. p. 115.
3 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, Le. S, 41. Cf. Walter. Kirchenrecht, 1116 Aufl. 8.
290, note 4,
NICEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 399
identify the ecclesie suburbicarie with ‘the regiones suburbi-
carice, or that he is. mistaken if he has ἄοπθ 80. Phillips
thinks that Rufinus has not really fallen into this error.
Having remarked that the provincie suburbicaric (that is to
say, the ten provinces enumerated above) took their name
from the vicarius wrbis, he considered that the ecclesie suburbi-
caric also took theirs from the episcopus urbis; and he has
comprised under this name of ecclesie suburbicarie all the
churches which form part of the Roman patriarchate.
For my part, I willingly believe that the expression of
Rufinus is inaccurate; for the Prisca (an old Latin translation
of the canons) translates the passage of our canon in question
as follows: Antiqgui moris est, ut urbis Rome episcopus habeat
principatum, ut suburbicaria loca ET OMNEM PROVINCIAM SUAM
sollicitudine gubernet ;+ (a) understanding by suburbicaria loca
the little territory of the prefectus wrbi, but (Ὁ) not restricting
the authority of the Pope as patriarch within the limits of this
territory ; and therefore it adds, εὐ omnem provinciam suam.
But what was in fact the extent of this patriarchate of the
Church of Rome ?
The Greek commentators Zonaras and Balsamon (of the
twelfth century) say very explicitly, in their explanation of
the canons of Niczea, that this sixth canon confirms the rights
of the Bishop of Rome as patriarch over the whole West.
We see, then, that even the Greek schismatics of former times
admitted that the Roman patriarchate embraced the entire
West,” as the following testimonies and considerations prove :—
a. Mention is made a hundred times by the ancients, of
the patriarchates into which the Churches of the East were
divided (Alexandria, Antioch, etc.); but no one has ever
hinted at the existence of a second patriarchate of the West.
On the contrary, it may be seen that in all the West there
was only one patriarchate.
b. S. Augustine shows that the Bishop of Rome was looked
upon as this Patriarch of all the West, for he gives to Pope
Innocent 1. the title of “ President of the Church of the West.”*
1 Mansi, vi. 1127.
2 In Beveridge, Synodicon seu Pandecte Canonum, i. 66, 67.
3 Contra Julianum, lib. i. 6. 6.
400 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, —
c. S. Jerome gives the same testimony. He writes to the
presbyter Mark, “that he was accused of heresy on account
of his clinging to the homoousios, and that this charge had
deen carried to the West and into Egypt; that is to say, to
Damasus Bishop of Rome, and to Peter (Bishop of Alexan-
dria).” It may be scen that, as the Bishop of Alexandria is
here regarded as Patriarch of Egypt, so the Bishop of Rome
is considered the Patriarch of the West.’
d. The Synod of Arles, held in 314, speaks in the same
way. In a letter to Pope Sylvester, it says to him: Qui
majores diceceses tenes.” It considers, then, that the Bishop of
Rome has under his jurisdiction several (civil) dioceses, while
the other patriarchs had, as we have seen, only one.
e. We may finally appeal to the authority of the Emperor
Justinian, who in his 119th Wovel, speaking of the ecclesi-
astical division of the whole world, numbers five patriarch-
ates: those of Rome, of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of
Antioch, and of Jerusalem. Now, as these four last patri-
archates contain only the Church of the East, it is evident
that the patriarchate of Rome contains in itself alone all the
West.’
The Roman patriarchate contained, then, eight dioceses,
which at the beginning of the sixth century were divided
into sixty-eight provinces ;* and although, at the accession
of Theodosius the Great—that is to say, in 378—Eastern
Illyricum ceased to form part of the Empire of the West,
and was joined to that of the East, yet the provinces of this
prefecture continued to be joined to Rome for ecclesiastical
purposes, and a special papal vicar was charged with the
1 Hieron. Lp. 15 (al. 77), ad Marcum presb. Cf. Maassen, S..117.
2 Hard. i. 262.
3 Cf. Maassen, lc. 5. 118 f.; and Wiltsch, Kirchl. Statistik, Bd. i. 8. 67.
4 They were—Isf, The prefecture of Italy, with the three dioceses of Italy,
Illyricum, and Africa; 2d, The prefectura Galliarum, with the dioceses of
Hispanic, Septem provincie (that is to say, Gaul, properly so called, with
Belgia, Germania, prima et secunda, etc.), and Britannia ; 38d, The prefecture
of Illyricum, which became part of the empire of the East after the accession of
Theodosius the Great (it is necessary to distinguish this prefecture of Illyricum
from the province of Illyria, which formed part of the prefecture of Italy), with
the provinces of Macedonia and Dacia. Cf. Notitia dignit. ed. Bocking, t. i.
p. 9 sqq., p. 13 sqq., and t. i. p. 13 sq.; and Maassen, Jc. 8, 125.
NICHA: CONTENTS OF TIIE CANONS, 401.
ecclesiastical government of these dioceses. The first of these
vicars was Bishop Ascholius of Thessalonica, appointed by Pope
Damasus.*
It must not, lastly, be overlooked that the Bishop of Rome
did not exercise in an equal degree, over the whole West,
the full rights of patriarch; for in several provinces simple
bishops were ordained without his consent. On the other
hand, the Pope exercised his patriarchal right in convoking
at different renewals the general and private synods of the
Western Church (synodos occidentales)—for example, the Synod
of Arles in 314—and in making himself the judge of the
metropolitans of the ἐρῆμον either directly or indirectly, as in
Illyricum by his vicar.
In some ancient Latin translations, this: canon begins with
the words, Zeclesia Romana semper habuit primatum ;* and
this variation is also found in the Prisca. So the Emperor
Valentinian IIL, in his edict of 445 on the subject of Hilary
of Arles, issued also in the name of his Eastern colleague
Theodosius IL, maintained that the holy Synod had confirmed
the primacy of the Apostolic See. The Emperor Valentinian
evidently makes allusion to the sixth canon of Nica; for at
that time the second canon of the Council of Constantinople,
held in 381, which speaks in the same sense, was not yet
known at Rome.’
It must be added that, at the time of the sixteenth session
of the fourth Gcumenical Council at Chalcedon, the Roman
legate Paschasinus read the sixth canon of Nicza in the fol-
lowing manner: Quod Eeclesia Romana semper habwit prima-
tum; tencat autem et Aigyptus, ut episcopus Alexandrie omnium
habeat potestatem, quoniam et Romano episcopo hec est consuectudo.
The actual text of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon
proves that the translation given by Paschasinus was placed
over against the Greek text of the sixth canon of Nicea. An
attempt has been made to see in this juxtaposition a protest
1 Cf. Maassen, l.c. S. 126-129. .
2 Cf. Maassen, U.c. 5. 121-125, and S. 181.
3 Hard. i. 325; Mansi, ii. 687 ; Van Espen, Commentar. in canones, etc., p. 98.
4 Printed in the edition of the Works of S. Leo the Great, si en by the
Ballerini, i. 642. It is the eleventh letter in this edition.
δ Cf, Maassen, U.c. S. 71, and 96 ἢ
2C
402 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
of the Synod against the Roman translation; but even if it
is admitted that the portion of the acts which gives these
two texts is perfectly autheatic, it is very evident that the
legate Paschasinus had no intention, in quoting the sixth
canon of Nicza, to demonstrate the primacy of the Holy See:
he only desires to prove that the Bishop of Constantinople
ought not to take precedence of those of Antioch and Alex-
andria, because that would be a violation of the canon of
Nica. It was not the words of the translation of Paschasinus
with reference to the see of Rome which engaged the atten-
tion of the Council; it was those which referred to the sees
of Antioch and Alexandria, and those were very faithfully
translated from the Greek. On the other hand, the Ballerini
have shown in a nearly conclusive way, in their edition of
the Works of S. Leo the Great, that the acts of Chalcedon
have been interpolated, that the Greek text of the sixth
canon of Nicea must have been introduced by some later
copyist, and that the text of Paschasinus was the only one
which was read in the Synod. We shall return to this ques-
tion in the history of the Council of Chalcedon.
It seems to us that Dr. Maassen goes too far, when he says?
that the Council of Chalcedon expressly confirmed the Roman
interpretation of the sixth canon of Nicza, and consequently
its recognition of the Roman primacy. It is true that, after
the reading of the Latin version of the canon in question,
followed by the reading of the first, second, and third canons
of Constantinople (of 381°), the imperial commissioners who
were present at the Synod made this declaration: “ After what
has been cited on both sides, we acknowledge that the most
ancient right of all (πρὸ πάντων τὰ πρωτεῖα), and the pre-
eminence (καὶ τὴν ἐξαίρετον τιμὴν), belong to the Archbishop
of old Rome ;* but that the same pre-eminence of honour (Ta
πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιμῆς) Ought to be given to the Archbishop of
new Rome.” Maassen has considered that, after these words of
the imperial commissioners, it may be concluded that the sixth
17. iii, p. xxxvii. sq. 2 1.c. S. 90-95.
3. Hard. 11, 638. These canons were read by the consistorial secretary Con-
stantine.
* Hard. ii, 642
NICZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 403
canon of the Council of Niczea had already recognised, in fact,
the right of the Pope to take precedence of all other bishops ;
but it was not so. The commissioners said: On both sides
that is to say, in what the papal legate has read, and in what
has been read by the consistorial secretary Constantine as
well, the precedence of Rome is recognised. This is the same
as saying: This precedence, which we do not in the least con-
test (there is no question, in fact, of that), is set forth (@) in
the Latin version of the sixth canon of Nicza, read by Pas-
chasinus, and is contained (Ὁ) in the canons of Constantinople
read by Constantine. But the imperial commissioners of the
Synod go no further in their declarations; and in particular,
they have not declared that the original text of the sixth
eanon of Niczea—a text which had not been read—contains
affirmatively a recognition or a confirmation of the primacy
of the Pope.
But it will be said, How could the ancient translators of
these canons, as well as the legates of the Pope and Emperors,
suppose that the sixth canon of Nica included a confirmation
of the primacy of Rome? In answer to this question, Dr.
‘Maassen has put forward a theory, which we produce simply
as a theory: “The Fathers (of Nicza) confirmed the rights of
each see (of Alexandria, of Antioch, etc.). Why did they
take as an example in their decree the constitution of the
Roman patriarchate? Why were they not content simply
‘to give their sanction to those patriarchal rights without ad-
ducing this analogy? We cannot imagine a more striking
proof of the deep respect that the Fathers of Nicsea had for
the visible head of the Church; for no one will suppose that
the simple confirmation by the Council of the rights of superior
metropolitans would not be perfectly sufficient... ... But
that which was sufficient for mere law did not satisfy the
Fathers of Nica: their own sentiments on the utility of the
institution of patriarchates did not appear sufficient to in-
fluence their decree: they did not wish to present to the
approbation of the Pope those decrees simply confirming the
privileges of superior metropolitans. They preferred to refer
to the fact that ‘the Bishop of Rome already enjoyed the
same position:’ it was to show that at Rome an institution
404 το HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
existed analogous to that which they wished to confirm. In
reserving to himself a certain number of provinces which he
might deal with in a peculiar manner, did not the Pope most
clearly recognise it as necessary that the same should be the
case with other Churches; and that a portion of tlhe power
which belonged exclusively to him in his position as chief
pastor of the universal Church, should be committed to other
bishops? The Bishop of Rome was then, strictly speaking,
the founder of the institution of patriarchates (that is to say,
he gave to certain patriarchs a portion of that power over the
universal Church which belonged to him). He had himself
given the type, that is, the motive, upon which the Fathers
of Nicsea founded their canon. Can we wonder, then, that
the most remote antiquity found in this canon, to use the
expression of Pope Gelasius 1, ‘an unique and irrefragable
testimony’ in support of the primacy ?”
The sixth canon of Nica has been inserted in the Corpus
juris canonict, but there it has been divided into three smaller
canons.”
Can. 7.
᾿Επειδὴ συνήθεια κεκράτηκε καὶ παράδοσις ἀρχαῖα, ὥστε τὸν
ἐν Αἰλίᾳ ἐπίσκοπον τιμᾶσθαι, ἐχέτω τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς τιμῆς
τῇ μητροπόλει σωζομένου τοῦ οἰκείου ἀξιώματος.
“ As custom and ancient tradition show that the Bishop of
fElia ought to be honoured (in a special manner), he shall
have precedence; without prejudice, however, to the dignity
which belongs to the metropolis.”
Short as this canon is, its explanation presents great diffi-
culties. One thing is certain: it is, that the Council desires
to confirm an ancient right of the Bishop of A#lia, that is
to say, of Jerusalem, to enjoy certain honours; but in what
they consisted, and what must be understood by the words
ἀκολουθία τῆς τιμῆς, We cannot easily determine.
If the city of Jerusalem had not been taken and destroyed
by Titus, August 31st, in the seventieth year after Christ,
it would certainly have had, in the organization and economy
of the Church, a very distinguished place as the ancient
1 Tard. ii. 919; Maassen. S. 140 f.
8 C, 6, Dist. lxv.; ¢. 8, Dist. ixiv.; and. 1, Dist. lxt.
NIC4ZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 405
Mother-Church of Christendom; but of old Jerusalem there
remained only three towers and a portion of the city wall:
all the rest was levelled with the ground, and the plough had
passed over the ruins. .
A short time after the year 70, certain Jewish and Chris-
tian colonists settled in the midst of these ruins, and built
huts there, and even a little Christian church in the place,
in which the first believers were in the habit of meeting after
the ascension of Christ to celebrate the eucharistic feast." A
short time after the commencement of the second century,
the Emperor Hadrian had a new city built upon the ruins of
Jerusalem, with a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus. He also
gave the new city the name of Alia Capitolina, in remem-
brance of this temple and of his own family. He peopled it
with fresh colonists, after the entire exclusion. of the Jews.
We find in this new city a large community of Christians,
converts from heathenism, who had at their head the Bishop
Marcus ;? but for two hundred years the name of Jerusalem
appears no more in history. The new city was treated as
though it had nothing in common with the old; there was
even considerable difficulty in knowing and distinguishing the
differences which existed between the one and the other.* Thus
it happened that the city of Hadrian had not the ecclesiastical
rank which belonged by right to old Jerusalem. After Jeru-
salem had been destroyed by Titus, Cesarea (Zurris Stratonis),
which had formerly been only the second city in the country,
became the civil and ecclesiastical metropolis, and the Bishop
of Atlia was only a simple suffragan of the metropolitan of
Cesarea. But it might be foreseen that the reverence of all
Christians for the holy places, sanctified by the life, sufferings,
and death of our Lord, would contribute little by little to raise
the importance of the old city, and consequently that of its
Church and bishop; and thus it came to pass that the metro-
politan of Czesarea was gradually equalled, if not surpassed, by
1 Epiph. de mensuris et ponderibus, c. 14, t. ii. p. 170, ed. Petav.
* Euseb. Hist. Eccles, iv. 6.
_ * It is only after the Council of Nica that the name of Jerusalem reappears,
Eusebius, for instance, always uses it.
4 Beveridge, lc. p. 63.
406 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the dignity of the Holy City κατ᾽ é£oyiv—without, however,
the subordinate ecclesiastiaal position of the latter being altered:
Towards the end of the second century the gradation was
already so sensible, that at a Synod of Palestine the Bishop
of A‘lia o¢cupied the presidency conjointly with the metro-
politan of Czesarea (secundo loco, it is true); as Eusebius, who
was himself afterwards metropolitan of Czesarea, plainly tells
us in the fifth book and twenty-third chapter of his History :
“ At a Synod held on the subject of the Easter controversy
in the time of Pope Victor, Theophilus of Czesarea and Nar-
cissus of Jerusalem were presidents.” The same Eusebius
shows us, in his fifth book and twenty-fifth chapter, how
near in honour the Bishops of Jerusalem and Cesarea were
to each other; for, when writing a list of the bishops, he
places Narcissus of Jerusalem before the metropolitan Theo-
philus of Caesarea. It is true that in the twenty-second
chapter he does the contrary. The synodal letter of the
bishops assembled at Antioch in 269 on the subject of the
errors of Paul of Samosata is very remarkable on this point.
It is signed first by Helenus Bishop of Tarsus, immediately
afterwards by Hymenzus Bishop of Jerusalem, whilst Theo-
tecnus Bishop of Cesarea signs only ‘quarto loco It must
not, however, be hastily concluded from this that the Bishop
of Jerusalem had already at this time priority of the metro-
_ politan of Caesarea; but it cannot be doubted that the entirely
exceptional position in which he found himself would of
necessity raise difficulties between himself and his metropo-
litan. ‘It is this which probably induced the Synod of Nica
to pass its seventh canon. The eminent De Marca, as welt
as other historians, have supposed that by this canon the
Synod wished to grant the first place to the Bishop of Jeru-
salem, immediately after the three great Patriarchs of Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch, without altogether raising him to
the rank of Patriarch, and leaving him subject to the juris-
diction of the metropolitan of Czesarea. Marca explains in
this way the words ἐχέτω τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς τιμῆς: 1. He
should have the honour (respectu honoris) of following im-
mediately after the metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and
1 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii. 30. Cf. c. 22. See further back, sec. 9.
NICEA : CONTENTS. OF THE CANONS, 407
Antioch; 2. The last words of the canon signify that the
dignity which belongs to the’ metropolitan must not, however.
be infringed Marca appeals in ‘support of his theory to
an old translation by Dionysius the Less, and to another
yet older translation which was composed for the Synod: of
Carthage held in 419. But not one of these translations
supports” Marca, for not one’ of them ‘gives any explanation
of the words ἀκολουθία τῆς τιμῆς Beveridge has especially
taken it upon himself to refute Marca.. A patriarch placed
under the jurisdiction of a metropolitan is, according to him,
an impossibility. He considers that, by the words ἐχέτω τὴν
ἀκολουθίαν, the Council of Nica has simply desired to con-
firm to the Bishop οἵ Jerusalem the first place after the
metropolitan of Cesarea, just as in the Anclican hierarchy the
Bishop of London comes immediately after the Archbishop
of Canterbury. Beveridge remarks on this, that it may be
answered, that in this same Synod of Nica, where the
bishops signed by provinces, Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem
nevertheless’ signed before Eusebius the ‘metropolitan of
Ceesarea. Beveridge acknowledges the accuracy of this reply ;.
but he adds that two’ other bishops of Palestine also signed.
before Eusebius, and yet no one will maintain that they were-
not under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Ceesarea..
The signatures at the Council of Nica are not, then, con-.
clusive. It might be added that, in these same signatures.
of the Council, the metropolitan of the province of Isauria.
is found signing in the fifth place, that is to say, after four
of his suffragans ; and even the metropolitan of Ephesus did.
not sign first among the bishops of Asia Minor (although
Ephesus was one of the largest metropolitan cities of the
Church): his narne comes after that of the Bishop of
Cyzicus.
A more remarkable incident is, that almost immediately
after the Council of Niciea, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus,
‘convoked, without any reference to the Bishop of Czesarea, a
Synod of Palestine, which ‘pronounced in favour of 5. Atha-
nasius, and proceeded further-to’ the consecration of bishops.
* Marca, de Concordia sacerdotii et tmperii, lib. v. c. 12, n. 4
£Sce Mansi, vi. 1128, and iv. 411; Hard. i. 1246,
408 . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. »
Socrates, who records this fact, adds, it is ‘true, that he was
reprimanded for having so acted. But this fact shows that
the Bishop of Jerusalem was endeavouring to make himself
independent of the. Bishop of Czesarea. It may also be seen.
by the signatures of the second Gicumenical Synod, that Cyril
Bishop of Jerusalem wrote his name before that of Thalassius
Bishop of Ceesarea. And, on the other side, it is not less certain
that in 395 John metropolitan of Cesarea nominated Por-
phyrius, a priest of Jerusalem, Bishop of Gaza; and that the
Synod of Diospolis, held in 415, was presided over by Eulo-
gius metropolitan of Cesarea, although John Bishop of Jeru-
salem was present at the Synod. These different researches
show us that the question of precedence between the Bishops
of Cxsarea and Jerusalem cannot be determined ; for sometimes
it is the Bishop of Czsarea who is first, sometimes the Bishop
of Jerusalem. This state of things lasted on to the time of the
third Gicumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. Juvenal
Bishop of Jerusalem took a very prominent place, and signed
immediately after Cyril of Alexandria (it is true the Bishop
of Czesarea in Palestine was not present). But this same Cyril
was at this Synod a declared opponent of Juvenal; and when
the latter wished by the help of false documents to have his
ecclesiastical primacy over Palestine acknowledged by the
Council, Cyril appealed on the subject to the authority of the
Roman See.” This same Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem had
attempted, after a long contest wiih Maximus Bishop of
Antioch, to make himself a patriach; and the Bishop of
Antioch, weary of the controversy, determined that the three
provinces of Palestine should be under the patriarchate. of
Jerusalem, whilst Phoenicia and Arabia should remain attached
to the see of Antioch. The,fourth GEcumenical Council held
‘1 Socrates, ii. 24.
2 Pope Leo the Great wrote on this subject, in his sixty-second letter to Bishop
Maximus of Antioch : Sicut etiam in Ephesina synodo, que impium Nestorium
cum dogmate suo perculit, Juvenalis episcopus ad obtinendum Palestine provincie
principatum credidit se posse sufficere, et insolentes ausus per commentitia scripta
Jirmare.. Quod sancte memoria Cyrillus Alexandrinus merito perhorrescens,
scriptis suis mihi, quid predicta cupiditas ausa sit, indicavit et sollicita prece
multum poposcit, ut nulla illicitis conatibus preberetur assensio.—BEVERIDGE,
he. p. 64 dD
NIC:A : CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 409
at Chalcedon ratified this division in its seventh session, with-
out, as it appears, the least opposition being offered.’
The last words of the seventh canon, τῇ μητροπόλει, x.T.X.,
have also been explained in different ways. Most writers—
and we share their opinion—think that these words desig-
nate the metropolis of Cesarea; others have supposed that
the question is about the metropolis of Antioch ; but Fuchs?”
has supposed that the reference is wholly to Jerusalem. Ac-
cording to him, the Council simply wished to show the reason
of the existence of certain honours granted to this Church,
because this metropolis (as an original Church) had a special
dignity. This last theory clearly cannot be sustained: if the
canon had this meaning, it would certainly have had a very
different form. This seventh canon has been inserted in the
: Corpus juris canonici?
Can. 8.
Περὶ τῶν ὀνομαζόντων μὲν ἑαυτοὺς Καθαρούς ποτε, προσερ-
χομένων δὲ τῇ καθολικῇ καὶ ἀποστολικῇ ᾿Εκκλησίᾳ, ἔδοξε τῇ
ἁγίᾳ. καὶ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ, ὥστε χειροθετουμένους αὐτοὺς μένειν
οὕτως ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ" πρὸ πάντων δὲ τοῦτο ὁμολογῆσαι αὐτοὺς
ἐγγράφως προσήκει, ὅτε συνθήσοντανι καὶ ἀκολουθήσουσι τοῖς
τῆς καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας δόγμασι" τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε
καὶ διγάμοις κοινωνεῖν καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ παραπεπτωκύσιν"
ἐφ᾽ ὧν καὶ χρόνος τέτακται, καὶ καιρὸς ὥρισται ὥστι αὐτοὺς
ἀκολουθεῖν ἐν. πᾶσι τοῖς δόγμασι τῆς καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας"
ἔνθα μὲν οὖν πάντες, εἴτε ἐν κώμαις, εἴτε ἐν πόλεσιν αὐτοὶ μόνοι
εὑρίσκοιντο χειροτονηθέντες, οἱ εὑρισκόμενοι ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ἔσονται
ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ σχήματι εἰ δὲ τοῦ τῆς καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας ἐπι-
σκόπου ἢ πρεσβυτέρου ὄντος προσέρχονταί τινες, πρόδηλον, ὡς
ὁ μὲν ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας ἕξει τὸ ἀξίωμα τοῦ ἐπισκόπου,
ὁ δὲ ὀνομαζόμενος παρὰ τοῖς λεγομένοις Καθαροῖς ἐπίσκοπος
τὴν τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τιμὴν ἕξει: πλὴν εἰ μὴ ἄρα δοκοίη τῷ
ἐπισκόπῳ, τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτὸν μετέχειν" εἰ δὲ τοῦτο
αὐτῷ μὴ ἀρέσκοι, ἐπινοήσει τόπον ἢ χωρεπισκόπου ἢ πρεσβυ-
'πτέρου, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὅλως δοκεῖν εἶναι, ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῇ
πόλει δύο ἐπίσκοποι ὦσιν.
1 Hard. ii. 491.
2 Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kir chenversammlungen, Bd. i. 8. 599.
3C. 7, Dist. lxv.
410. HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. ”
“With regard to those who call themselves: Catha?i, the
holy and great Synod decides, that if they will enter the
Catholic and Apostolic Church, they must submit to imposition
of hands, and they may then remain among the clergy: they'
must, above all, promise in writing to conform to and: follow
the doctrines of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; that is to
say, they must communicate with those who hive: married ἃ
second. time, and with’ those who have’ lapsed under persecu-
tion, but who have done penance for their faults. They must
then follow in every respect the doctrines of the Catholic
Church. Consequently, when in villages or in cities there are
found only clergy of their own sect, the oldest of these clerics
shall remain among the clergy, and in their position; but if
a Catholic priest or bishop be found among them, it is evident
that the bishop of the Catholic Church should. preserve the
episcopal dignity, whilst any one who has received the title of
bishop from the so-called. Catharz would only havea right to
the honours accorded to priests, unless the bishop thinks it
right to let him enjoy the honour of the (episcopal) title. If
he does not desire to do so, let him give him the place of
rural bishop (chorepiscopus) or priest, in order that he may
appear to be altogether a part of the clergy, and that there
may not be two bishops in one city.”
The Cathari who are here under discussion are no other
than the Novatians (and not the Montanists, as is maintained
in the Gottinger gelchrten Anzcigen, 1780, St. 105), who from
a spirit of severity wished to exclude for ever from the Church
those who had shown weakness’ during persecution. They
arose at the time of the Decian persecution, towards the
middle of the third century, and had for their founder the
Roman priest Novatian, who accused his Bishop Cecilian of
showing too much lenity towards the dapsz. . These, schismatics
were called Novatians from the name of their leader; but
from a spirit. of pride they gave themselves the name of
Cathari (Puritans), car’ ἐξοχὴν, because their communion alone
was in their eyes the pure bride of Christ, whilst the Catholic
Church had been contaminated by the readmission of the
lapst. _ Their: fundamental principle of the perpetual exclusion
of the /apsi was in a manner the concrete: form of the genera}
NICZA: CONTENTS. OF THE CANONS, 411
principle, brought forward two generations before, that. whoever
after baptism once fell into mortal sin, should never be re-
ceived back into the Church: The Catholic Church was her-
self in those: times very much inclined to severity : she granted
permission to perform penance only once; whoever fell a
second time was for ever excluded. But the Montanists and
Novatians exceeded this severity, and professed the most
merciless rigour... A portion of the Novatians— those of
Phrygia? δευφαϊϊοῤῥοα the Montanists in a second kind of
rigourism, in declaring that any one. of the faithful who
married again after the death of his consort committed adul-
tery. What we have said shows that the Novatians were in
truth schismatics, but not heretics; and this explains the mild
manner in which the Council of Nicza treated the Novatian
priests (for it is of them only that this canon speaks).? The
Council treats them as it had treated the Meletians* It de-
cides, in fact, 1st, ὥστε χειροθετουμένους, x.7.r., that is to say,
“they must receive imposition of hands.” The meaning of
these words has been a matter of dispute. Dionysius the Less
translates them in this way: wt impositionem manus accipi-
entes, sic in clero permancant. The Prisca® gives a similar
translation; and then it may be said that the eighth canon;
according to the two authors, would be entirely in accordance
with the decision given by the Council of Nica on the sub-
ject of the Meletians. That decision ordered that the Meletian
clergy should. not indeed be ordained anew by a Catholic
bishop, but that they ought nevertheless to receive from him
imposition of hands.’ They were treated as those who had
received baptism at the hands of heretics. Beveridge® and
Van Espen® have explained this canon in another manner,
resting upon Rufinus, and the two Greek commentators of the
middle ages, Zonaras and Balsamon. According to them, the
χειροθετουμένους does not signify the imposition of hands
1 The Pastor Herma, lib, ii, Mand. iv. c. 1, says: Servis enim Dei poni-
tentia una est.
2 Socrat. Hist, Hecl. v. 22.
3 Cf. Mattes, die Ketzertaufé, in the Tiibinger. theolog. Quartalschr. 1849,
8. 578.
Ὁ See above, sec. 40. ὅδ In Mansi, ii. 680. * In Mansi, vi. 1128.
¥ See above, sec. 40. Slep. 67. 2 9 Commentarius in cdnones, p. 94,
j
41% ~° WISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
which was to be received on their returning to the Catholic
Church: it simply refers to the priesthood received in’ the
community of the Novatians; and consequently the sense of
the canon of the Council of Nicza is as follows: “ Whoever
has been ordained when amongst the Novatians, must remain
among the clergy.” It seems to me that the Greek text is
more favourable to the first opinion than to the second, as the
article is wanting before χειροθετουμένους, and αὐτοὺς is added ;
but this first opinion itself supposes that the reference is to
those who were already clerics when they were in Novatian-
ism, so that the meaning and fundamental idea is nearly the
same in the one interpretation as in the other: for even sup-
posing that Beveridge and Van Espen are in the right, it does
not follow that the Novatian clerics were admitted among the
orthodox clergy without any condition, particularly without
some imposition of hands; on the contrary, it is clear that
they were not treated with more consideration than the
Meletian clergy. Gratian appears to us to be in opposition
to what our text tells us, and to the practice of the ancient
Church, as well as to the analogy of the case of the Novatians
with that of the Meletians, in supposing that the eighth canon
of Niceea prescribes a re-ordination.*
The Synod decided, besides, that the Novatians who came
over should promise in writing a full submission to the doc-
trines of the Catholic Church. By these doctrines the canon
does not seem to mean the doctrines of the faith in the special
sense of the words: it seems rather to have reference to the
admission of the daps?, and those who contracted second mar-
riages. To quiet the Novatians on the subject of the ἰαρϑῖ,
care is taken to add that they must have submitted to a pre-
scribed penance; that is to say, that the /apst should, before
being readmitted into the Church, undergo a long and severe
penance.
After having established these two rules of discipline, the
Synod adds the general condition, that Novatians (that is to
say, the Novatian idleroy) who desire restoration to the Church
shall submit in general to all the doctrines of the Catholic
Church. !
Υ͂
& -'Gratian, Corp. juris canonici, cap. 8, causa i, quest 7.
NIC/A: CONTENTS OF TIIE CANONS, 413
The Council adds also the following directions :—
(a.) If in any city or village there exist only Novatian
clergy, they are to retain their offices; so that, for example,
the Novatian bishop of an entirely Novatian district may
remain as a regular bishop when he re-enters the Catholic
Church.
(8.) But if there be found somewhere (perhaps it is neces-
sary to read εἰ δέ που instead of εὐ δὲ τοῦ) a Catholic bishop
or priest along with Novatians, the Catholic bishop is to pre-
serve his office; and the Novatian bishop must take the posi-
tion of a simple priest, unless the Catholic bishop thinks it
well to allow him the honour of the episcopal title (but with-
out any jurisdiction). The Council does not say what is to
be done with the Novatian priests; but we may infer that, in
places which possess but one priest, the cure should return to
a Catholic priest, and the Novatian priest should retain only
the title. The Synod did not provide for the case of a con-
flict between several priests, but the rules made on the subject
of the Meletians enable us to supply this omission. Converts
are allowed to remain in the office and rank of the priesthood,
but they are to take their place after the other priests, and
they are to be excluded from elections.
(y.) Lastly, in a case where a Catholic bishop would not
leave the Novatian bishop the continuance of the episcopal
title, he should give him the post of a chorepiscopus' or priest,
and this that the Novatian might continue to be visibly one
of the clergy, and yet there might not be two bishops in the
same city.
This mildness of the Synod of Nicza in the case of the
Novatians had no more effect in extinguishing this schism
than in the case of the Meletians ; for Novatianism continued
until the fifth century.
Amongst the Novatian bishops who took part in the Synod,
we must especially mention Acesius, bishop of this sect at
Constantinople, whom the Emperor Constantine held in great
esteem on account of the austerity of his life, and had in con-
1 See the art. Chorbischaf in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. ii.
S. 495 f.
Ὁ S, Augustine makes allusion to this rule in his Hpist. 213. See above, sec. 41.
414 - HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
sequence invited him to the Synod.t Constantine asked him
if he were willing to subscribe the Creed and the rule on the
feast of Easter. “ Yes,’ replied Acesius, “for there is here,
O Emperor, nothing new introduced by the Council ; for it has
been so believed since the time of the apostles, and thus has
Easter been kept.’ And when the Emperor further asked,
“Why, then, do you separate from the communion of the
Church?” Acesius replied by quoting different acts which
had been passed under the Emperor Decius, and by declaring
that no one who had committed mortal sin should be ad-
mitted again to the holy mysteries. He might be exhorted
to repentance, but the priest had not the right to pronounce
him really absolved, but the penitent must look for pardon
from God alone. Upon this the Emperor replied, “ Acesius,
take a ladder, and climb up to heaven alone.”? Sozomen has
suggested*® that Acesius was of very great use to his party,
and it is generally believed that this canon was made so mild
towards the Novatians out of respect for him.*
Can. 9.
Ei τινες ἀνεξετάστως προσήχθησαν πρεσβύτεροι, ἢ ἀνακρι-
VOMEVOL ὡμολόγησαν τὰ ἡμαρτημένα αὐτοῖς, καὶ ὁμολογησάντων
αὐτῶν, παρὰ κανόνα κινούμενοι ἄνθρωποι τοῖς τοιούτοις χεῖρα
ἐπιτεθείκασι' τούτους ὁ κανὼν οὐ προσίεται: τὸ γὰρ ἀνεπί-
ληπτον ἐκδικεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ᾿Εκκλησία.
“Tf any persons have been admitted to the priesthood
without inquiry, or if upon inquiry they have confessed their
crimes, and the imposition of hands has nevertheless been
conferred upon them in opposition to the canon, such ordina-
tion is declared invalid ; for the Catholic Church requires men
who are blameless.”
The crimes in question are those which were a bar to the
priesthood, such as blasphemy, (successive) bigamy, heresy,
idolatry, magic, etc., as the Arabic paraphrase of Joseph ex-
plains.” It is clear that these faults are punishable in the
1Sozom. Hist. Eccl. ii. 832 ; Socrat. Hist. Eccl, i. 10,
2 Socrat. ζ.6. 1. 10; Sozom. Jc. 1. 22. ; 3 Sozom. ii. 32.
4 Cf. Tillemont, Mémoires, etc., t. vi. article 17, p. 289, ed. Brux, 1782,
6 In Beveridge, 1c. p. 70.
NICZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 415
bishop no less than in the priest, and that consequently our
canon refers to the bishops as well as to the πρεσβύτεροι in
the more restricted sense. These words of the Greek text, “ In
the case in which any one might be induced, in opposition to
the canon, to ordain such persons,” allude to the ninth canon
of the Synod of Neocsarea. It was necessary to. pass such
ordinances ; for even in the fifth century, as the twenty-second
letter of Pope Innocent the First testifies, some held that as
baptism effaces all former sins, so it takes away all the «m-
pedimenta ordinationis which are the result of those sins.
The ninth canon of Nicza occurs twice in the Corpus juris
eanontet.” |
The following canon has a considerable resemblance to the
one which we have just considered.
Can. 10.
Ὅσοι προεχειρίσθησαν τῶν παραπεπτωκότων κατὰ ἄγνοιαν,
ἢ καὶ προειδότων τῶν προχειρισαμένων, τοῦτο οὐ προκρίνει τῷ
κανόνι τῷ ἐκκλησιαστικῷ" γνωσθέντες γὰρ καθαιροῦνται.
“The lapst who have been ordained in ignorance of their
fall, or in spite of the knowledge which the ordainer had of
it, are no exception to the canon of the Church, for they are
to be deposed as soon as their unworthiness is known.”
The tenth canon differs from the ninth, inasmuch as it
concerns only the aps: and their elevation, not only to the
priesthood, but to any other ecclesiastical preferment as well,
and requires their deposition. The punishment of a bishop
who should consciously perform such an ordination is not
mentioned ; but it is incontestable that the dapsi could not be
ordained, even after having performed penance: for, as the
preceding canon states, the Church requires those who were
faultless, It is to be observed that the word προχειρίζειν is
evidently employed here in the sense of “ ordain,” and is used
without any distinction from χειρίζειν ; whilst in the synodal
letter of the Council of Nicea on the subject of the Mele-
tians, there is a distinction between these two words, and
προχειρίζειν is used to signify eligere.®
1 Cf. Beveridge, 2.6. p. 70, - 2C. 4, Dist. 81, and ὃ, 7, Dist. 24,
8 Socrat. Le. i. 9.
416 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.”
This canon is found several times ‘in the Corpus juris
eanonict."
Can. 11.
Περὶ τῶν “παραβάντων χωρὶς ἀνάγκης ἢ χωρὶς ἀφαιρέσεως
ὑπαρχόντων ἢ χωρὶς κινδύνου ἤ τινος τοιούτου, ὃ γέγονεν ἐπὶ
τῆς τυραννίδος ΔΛικινίου' ἔδοξε τῇ συνόδῳ, κἂν ἀνάξιοι ἦσαν
φιλανθρωπίας, ὅμως χρηστεύσασθαιε εἰς αὐτούς" ὅσοι οὖν γνησίως
μεταμέλονται, τρία ἔτη ἐν ἀκροωμένοις ποιήσουσιν οἱ πιστοὶ, καὶ
ἑπτὰ ἔτη ὑποπεσοῦνται᾽ δύο δὲ ἔτη χωρὶς προσφορᾶς κοινωνή-
σουσι τῷ λαῷ τῶν προσευχῶν.
“ As to those who lapsed during the tyranny of Licinius,
without being driven to it by necessity, or by the confiscation
of their goods, or by any danger whatever, the Synod decides
that they ought to be treated with gentleness, although in
truth they have shown themselves unworthy of it. Those
among them who are truly penitent, and who before their fall
were believers, must do penance for three years among the
audientes, and seven years among the substrati. For two years
following they can take part with the people at divine service,
but without themselves participating in the oblation.”
The persecution of Licinius had come to an end only a
few years before the meeting of the Council of Nicsa, and
at the downfall of that Emperor. The cruelty with which
they were persecuted led a large number into apostasy. Thus
the Council had to take notice in several of its canons of the
lapst ; and as there were different classes to be made among
these /apsi—that is to say, as some among them had yielded
at the first threat, whilst others had undergone long tortures
before their fall—the Synod wished to take account of the
extenuating as well as of the aggravating circumstances, and to
proportion the punishment to the degree of the fault. This
canon does not say how the least guilty are to be treated; but
it decides that those who are the most guilty, and the least
excusable, should pass three years in the second degree of
penitence, seven years in the third, and two years in the fourth
or lowest class.”
The canon supposes that those who are to receive this treat.
10. 5, Dist. 81; ¢. 60, Dist. 50. .
2 See the fifth canon of the Synod of ἐπ sec. 16.
NICZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 417?
meut were before their fall fideles, 7c. members of the Church,
and not simple catechumens. We shall see in the fourteenth
canon what the Synod decides with respect to catechumens
who showed themselves weak.’
Can. 12.
Οἱ δὲ προσκληθέντες μὲν ὑπὸ THs χάριτος, Kal τὴν πρώτην
ὁρμὴν ἐνδειξάμενοι, καὶ ἀποθέμενοι τὰς ζώνας, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπὶ
τὸν οἰκεῖον ἔμετον ἀναδραμόντες ὡς κύνες, ὡς τινὰς καὶ ἀργύρια
προέσθαι, καὶ βενεφικίοις κατορθῶσαι τὸ ἀναστρατεύσασθαι"
οὗτοι δέκα ἔτη ὑποπυιπτέτωσαν μετὰ τὸν τῆς τριετοῦς ἀκροάσεως
χρόνον. ἐφ᾽ ἅπασι δὲ τούτοις προσήκει ἐξετάζειν τὴν προαίρεσιν,
καὶ τὸ εἶδος τῆς μετανοίας. ὅσοι μὲν γὰρ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ δάκρυσι
καὶ ὑπομονῇ καὶ ἀγαθοεργίαις τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν ἔργῳ καὶ οὐ
σχήματι ἐπιδείκνυνται, οὗτονυ πληρώσαντες τὸν χρόνον τὸν
ὡρισμένον τῆς ἀκροάσεως, εἰκότως τῶν εὐχῶν κοινωνήσουσι,
μετὰ τοῦ ἐξεῖναι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, καὶ φιλανθρωπότερον τι περὶ
αὐτῶν βουλεύσασθαι. ὅσοι δὲ ἀδιαφόρως ἤνεγκαν, καὶ τὸ σχῆμα
τοῦ [μὴ] εἰσιέναι εἰς τὴν ᾿Εκκλησίαν ἀρκεῖν αὐτοῖς ἡγήσαντο
πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν, ἐξάπαντος πληρούτωσαν τὸν χρόνον.
“Those who, called by grace, have shown the first zeal, and
have laid aside their belts, but afterwards have returned like
dogs to their vomit, and have gone so far as to give money
and presents to be readmitted into military service, shall
remain three years among the audientes, and ten years among
the substrati.. But in the case of these penitents, their intention
and the character of their repentance must be tried. In fact,
those among them who, by fear and with tears, together with
patience and good works, show by deeds that their conversion
is real, and not merely in appearance, after having finished the
time of their penance among the auwdientes, may perhaps take
part among those who pray; and it is in the power of the
bishop to treat them with yet greater lenity. As to those wh
bear with indifference (their exclusion from the Church), and
who think that this exclusion is sufficient to expiate their
faults, they must perform the whole period prescribed by the
law.”
1 On the penitential system of the primitive Church, see Beveridge, U.c. p. 71
$qq.; and Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. v. ΤῊ]. ii. S. 362 ff
20
418 °AHISTORY-OF THE. COUNCILS, —
Tn his last contests with Constantine, Licinius had’ made’
himself the representative of heathenism; so that the final
issue of the war would not be the mere triumph of one of the’
two pam pen ΟΝ, but the triumph or fall of Christianity or
heathenism.t Accordingly, a Christian who had in this war
supported the cause of Licinius and of heathenism might be
considered as ἃ Japsus, even if he did not formally fall away.
With much more reason might those Christians be treated as
lapsi, who, having éonbotontiouely given up military service
(this is meant by “the soldier's belt), afterwards retracted their
resolution, and went so far as to give money and ‘presents for
the sake of readmission, on account of the numerous advan-
tages which military service then afforded. It must not be
forgotten that Licinius, as Zonaras and Eusebius relate,” re-
quired from his soldiers a formal apostasy ; compelled them,
for example, to take part in the heathen sacrifices which were
held in the camps, and dismissed from his service those who
would not apostatize. It must not be supposed, then, that
the Council forbade military service generally, as the writer
has shown in the TZibinger Theol. Quartalschrift for 1841
(S. 386). But equally untenable is the opinion of Aubespine.”
He supposes that the canon speaks of those who promised to
perform a lifelong penance, and- to retain the accustomed
penitential dress, but who afterwards broke their vow, and
took part in secular matters, and tried to make their way to
posts of honour. The cingulum which the canon: mentions is
evidently the cingulum militia. It is in this sense too that
Pope Innocent the First has used it in his letter to Victricius
of Rouen. He says to that bishop, making, it is true, a mis-
take upon another point: Constitwit Witsonis synodus, si quis
post remissionem peccatorum cingulum milrtic secularis habuertt,
ad clericatum admitti omnino non debet.
The Council punishes with three years in the second decree
of penance, and with ten years in the third, those of the faith-
ful who had taken the side of Licinius in his struggle against
Christianity. It was, however, lawful for the bishop to pro-
mote the better disposed penitents of the second rank (ἀκρό-
1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 8. 2 In Beveridge, Uc. i. 78, and Euseb. x. 8.
4 1ῃ Van Espen, Zc. p. 97. 4 Οὗ, Fuchs, lc. S. 404. ° ;
NIC.EA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 419:
acts) to the fourth, in which they could be present at the.
whole of divine service (εὐχὴ). It is not stated how long
they should remain in this fourth rank; but from what the
eleventh canon says, it may be supposed that they remained
in it two years. As to those,who underwent their penance
with more indifference, and who were content to pray outside
the Church, without taking any active part in divine service,
they were required to fulfil the whole time of their penance.
It is by considering the negation μὴ which comes before
εἰσιέναι as an interpolation; as Gelasius of Cyzicus, the Prisca,
Dionysius the Less, the pseudo-Isidore,’ Zonaras,? and others
have done, that the interpretation given above may be obtained.
When inserting this canon in the de Penitentia,’ Gratian gives
it the same meaning that we do. If it is desired at any
cost to retain the negation, the last clause will be explained
as follows: “They consider it as sufficient obedience to the
Church not to go beyond what is allowed to them as penitents,
and not to attend without permission the missa fideliwm.”
Can. 13.
Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων ὁ παλαιὸς Kal κανονικὸς νόμος
φυλαχθήσεται καὶ νῦν, ὥστε, εἴ τις ἐξοδεύοι, τοῦ τελευταίου καὶ
ἀναγκαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου μὴ ἀποστερεῖσθαι: εἰ δὲ ἀπογνωσθεὶς
καὶ κοινωνίας πάλιν τυχὼν, πάλιν ἐν τοῖς ζῶσιν ἐξετασθῇ, μετὰ
τῶν κοινωνούντων τῆς εὐχῆς μόνης ἔστω" καθόλου δὲ καὶ περὶ
παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν ἐξοδεύοντος, αἰτούντος τοῦ μετασχεῖν Εὐχα-
ριστίας, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος μετὰ δοκιμασίας ἐπιδότω.
“With respect to the dying, the old rule of the Church
shall continue to be observed, which forbids that any one who
is on the point of death should be deprived of the last and
most necessary viaticum. If he does not die after having
been absolved and admitted to communion, he must be placed
amongst those who take part only in prayer. The bishop
shall, however, administer the Eucharist, after necessary
inquiry, to any one who on his deathbed asks to receive it.”
The Synod of Niczea provides for the case of a lapsus being
in danger of death before he has fulfilled the period of his
1 Mansi, ii. 681, 690, $99, vi 1129. . ® In Beveridge, lc. i. 73.
8.0. 4, Dist. 5.
420° . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
penance, and decides that, in conformity with the old custom
and with old rules—for example, the sixth canon of the Council
of Ancyra—the holy Eucharist (ἐφόδιον) should be admini-—
stered to the dying person, although he has not fulfilled all
his penance.’ Van Espen? and Tillemont*® have proved,
against Aubespine, that the word ἐφόδιον here signifies the
communion, and not merely absolution without communion.
The opinion of those two authors is also that of the two old
Greek commentators Zonaras and Balsamon, and of the Ara-
bian paraphrast Joseph. If the sick person should recover
his health, he should take his place in the highest rank of
penitents. The Council does not state the period he should
pass in it, but it is clear, and the ancient collector of canons,
John of Antioch, adds, “ that such an one should remain in
that class the whole time of penance gate Ἴρ in canons
fi ot 2°" :
The Synod ends this canon more generally. In the begin-
ning it treats only of the dapsz, but at the end it considers all
those who are excommunicated, and orders that the bishop,
after having made personal inquiry into the state of matters,
may administer the communion to every man on his deathbed,
whatever his offence may have been.
This thirteenth canon has been inserted in the Corpus
juris can.
Can. 14.
HTept τῶν κατηχουμένων Kal παραπεσόντων ἔδοξε TH ἁγίᾳ
καὶ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ, ὥστε τριῶν ἐτῶν αὐτοὺς ἀκροωμένους
μόνον, μετὰ ταῦτα εὔχεσθαι μετὰ τῶν κατηχουμένων.
“The holy and great Synod orders that catechumens who
have lapsed be audientes for three years ; they can afterwards
join in prayer with the catechumens.”
The catechumens are not, strictly speaking, members of the
Church: their lapse, therefore, in time of persecution, may
be considered as less serious than actual apostasy. But it was
also natural to prolong their time of probation, when, after
persecution, they asked again to be admitted among the cate-
1 Cf. Beveridge, 1.6. ii. 79. . 2 Van Espen, Commentarius, l.c. p. 98.
* Tillemont, ἴ.6. p. 361. ° 4 Cf. Beveridge, U.c. ii. 80 Ὁ.
ὁ Ὁ. 9, causa xxvi. 4. 6.
NICEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 421
cliumens ; and it is this of which the fourteenth canon treats.
These catechumens should, it says, remain.three years among
the audientes, that'is to say, among.the catechumens, who only
take part at the didactic part of worship, at sermons, and at
reading. If they showed during this time of penance zeal
and marks of improvement, they might be admitted to prayer
with the catechumens; that is to say, they might form part of
the higher class of those who made up the catechumeni sensu
strictiort, These could be present at the general prayers
which were offered at the end of the sermon; and they re-
ceived, but kneeling, the bishop’s blessing,
In the same way as Origen and several other writers, more
especially several Greek historians of the Church, so the Coun-
cil of Niczea speaks only, as we have seen, of two classes of
catechumens, Some Latin writers, amongst whom Isidore of
Seville may be quoted, speak only of these two grades of cate-
chumens ;’ and it may be said, without any doubt, that the
primitive Church knew of no others, Bingham? and Neander®
have maintained, and the opinion is generally held, that in the
fourth century there was formed a third class of catechumens,
composed of those who should receive baptism immediately ;
and also that the meaning of the ceremonies for the reception
of this sacrament was explained to them. They were called
φωτιζόμενοι and competentcs; but we notice that S, Isidore
‘makes conpetentes synonymous with γονυκλίνοντεςς. Beveridge
endeavours to prove that 8S. Ambrose also spoke of this third
class of catechumens ;* but the words of this Father, Sequent¢
die erat donvinica ; post lectiones atque tractatum, dimissis cate-
chumenis, symbolum aliquibus competentibus in baptistertis trade-
bam basilice, show us that by catechwmenis he understands the
first and second classes, and that the competentes belonged to
the third class.’
The fourteenth canon of Nicea has not been inserted in
the Corpus juris canonict, probably because the old system of
catechumens had ceased to exist at the time of Gratian.
1 Orig. vii. ο. 14. _ 2 Bingham, iv. 20.
* Neander, 2te Aufl. Bd. iii. 8. 606, gs
4 Beveridge, l.c. ii. 81. © mide lg, 4
5. Cf. Binterim, Denkwiirdigheiten, Bd. i. Thh i. 8. 1,
4292 .. HISTORY OF THE COUNCIES.
Cay. 15.
Διὰ τὸν πολὺν τάραχον καὶ τὰς στάσεις τὰς γινομένας ἔδοξε
παντάπασι περιαἰρεθῆναι τὴν συνήθειαν, τὴν παρὰ τὸν κανόνα
εὑρεθεῖσάν ἔν τισι μέρεσιν, ὥστε ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν μὴ
μεταβαίνειν μήτε ἐπίσκοπον μήτε πρεσβύτερον μήτε διάκονον.
εἰ δέ τίς μετὰ τὸν ἫΝ ἁγίας καὶ μεγάλης συνόδου ¢ ὅρον τοιούτῳ
τινὶ ἐπίχειρήσειεν, ἢ ἐπιδοίη ἑαυτὸν πράγματι τοιούτῳ, ἀκυρω-
θήσεται ἐξάπαντος τὸ κατασκεύασμα, καὶ ἀποκατασταθήσεται
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἣ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἢ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐχειροτονήθη.
“On account of the numerous troubles and divisions which
have taken place, it has been thought good that the custom
which has been established: in some countries in opposition to
the canon should be abolished ; namely, that no bishop, priest,
or deacon should remove frdti one city to another. If any
one should venture, even after this ordinance of the holy and
great Synod, to act contrary to this present rule, and should
follow the old custom, the translation shall be null, and he shall
return to the church to which he had been ordained bishop
or priest.” :
The translation of a bishop, priest, or deacon from one
church to another, had ‘already been forbidden in the primitive
Church. Nevertheless several translations had taken place,
and even at the Council of Niczea several eminent men were
present who had left their first bishoprics to take others: thus
Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia had been before Bishop of
Berytus; Eustathius Bishop of Antioch had been before
Bishop of Berrhcea in Syria. The Council of Niczea thought it
necessary to forbid in future these translations, and to declare
them invalid. The chief reason of this prohibition was found
in the irregularities and disputes occasioned by such change
of sees ; but even if such practical difficulties had not arisen,
the whole doctrinal idea, so to speak, of the relationship be-
tween a cleric and the church to which he had been ordained,
namely, the contracting of a mystical marriage between them,
would be opposed to any translation or change.
In 341 the Synod of Antioch renewed, in its twenty-first
canon, the prohibition passed by the Council of Nica; but
the interest of the Church often rendered it necessary to make
1 See the Can. Apost: 13 and 14.
NICZA! CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 423
exceptions, 88 happened in the case of 8. Chrysostom. ‘These
exceptional cases increased almost immediately after the hold-
ing of the-Council. of Nica, so that in 582 .S. Gregory of
Nazianzus considered this law among those which had long
been abrogated ‘by custom.’ It was more strictly observed in
the: Eatin Church; and even Gregory’ s contemporary, Pope
Damasus, declared himself decidedly in favour of the rule of
Nica.” It has been inserted in the Corpus juris canonici*
Can. 16.
Ὅσοι ῥυψοκινδύνως μήτε τὸν φόβον τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν
ἔχοντες, μήτε τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν κανόνα εἰδότες, a ἀναχωρήσουσε
τῆς ἐκκλησίας, πρεσβύτεροι ἢ διάκονοι ἢ ὅλως ἐν τῷ Kavove
ἐξεταζόμενοι: οὗτοι οὐδαμῶς δεκτοὶ ὀφείλουσιν εἶναι ἐν ἑτέρᾳ
ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν αὐτοῖς ἀνάγκην ἐπάγεσθαι χρὴ, ἀνα-
στρέφειν εἰς τὰς ἑαυτῶν παροικίας, ἢ ἐπιμένοντας ἀκοινωνήτους
εἶναι προσήκει. εἰ δὲ καὶ τολμήσειέ τίς ὑφαρπάσαι τὸν τῷ ἑτέρῳ
διαφέροντα, καὶ χειροτονῆσαι ἐν τῇ αὑτοῦ ἐκκλησίῷ, μὴ συγ-
κατατιθεμένου τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου, οὗ ἀνεχώρησεν ὁ ἐν τῷ
κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενος, ἄκυρος ἔσται ἡ χειροτονία.
“ Priests, deacons, and clerics in general, who have with
levity, and without having the fear of God before their eyes,
left their church in the face of the ecclesiastical laws, must
not on any account be received into another: they must be
compelled in all ways to return to their dioceses; and if they
refuse to do so, they must be excommunicated. If any one
should dare to steal, as it were, a person who belongs to
another (bishop), and to ordain him for his own church, with-
out the permission of the bishop from whom he’ was with-
drawn, the ordination shall be null.” . | :
This sixteenth canon ‘has a good deal of connection with
the preceding. It contains two general principles: a. It
threatens with excommunication ‘all ‘clerics, of whatever ‘de-
gree, if they will not return to their first church ;* Ὁ. It forbids
any bishop to ordain for -his. own diocese a person: belonging
to another diocese. It may be supposed that the Council of
1 Cf. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, 2te Aufl. Bd. iii. $: 317.
* Reveridge, l.c. ii. 81; Neander, lc. . 3 Cap. 19, causa vii. 4. 1,
4 According to Balsamon, exclusion from communio clericalis. -
424 τοῦ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS,
Nicaea has here again in view the Meletian schism; but it
must not be forgotten that Meletius did not ordain strangers
to his diocese, and retain them afterwards, but the reverse—.
he ordained clergymen for other: dioceses. : :
We notice also, that in this canon the expression ἐν τῷ
κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενος occurs twice to designate a cleric; it
means literally, any one. who belongs to the service of the
Church, who lives under its rule (κανὼν), or whose name is
inscribed in its list (κανὼν). ἦ
Gratian has inserted this éanon, and divided it into two?
| Can. 17. | .
᾿Επειδὴ πολλοὶ ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενοι τὴν πλεονεξίαν καὶ
τὴν αἰσχροκέρδειαν διώκοντες ἐπελάθοντο τοῦ θείου γράμματος
λέγοντος" Τὸ ἀργύριον αὑτοῦ οὐκ ἔδωκεν ἐπὲ τόκῳ" καὶ δανεί-
ζοντες ἑκατοστὰς ἀπαιτοῦσιν' ἐδικαίωσεν ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη
σύνοδος, ὡς, -εἴ τις εὑρεθείη μετὰ τὸν ὅρον τοῦτον τόκους λαμ-
βάνων ἐκ petayeipicews ἢ ἄλλως μετερχόμενος τὸ πρᾶγμα ἢ
ἡμιολίας ἀπαιτῶν ἢ ὅλως ἕτερόν τι ἐπινοῶν αἰσχροῦ κέρδους ἕνεκω,
καθαιρεθήσεται τοῦ κλήρου καὶ ἀλλότριος τοῦ κανόνος ἔσται.
“ As many clerics, filled with avarice and with the spirit of
usury, forget the sacred words, ‘ He that hath not given his
money upon usury, ἢ and demand usuriously (that is, every
month) a rate of interest, the great and holy Synod declares
that if any one, after the publication of this law, takes interest,
no matter on what grounds, or carries on the business (of
usurer), no matter in what way, or if he require half as much
again, or if he give himself up to any other sort of scandalous
gain, he shall be deposed from his clerical office, and his
name struck off the list.”
Several of the oldest Fathers of the Church considered that
the Old Testament forbade interest to be received: thus, in the
fourth book of his controversial work against Marcion, Ter-
tullian wishes to prove to this Gnostic the harmony which
exists between the Old and the New Testament, by taking as
1 See, on this point, the dissertation of Dr. Miinchen on the first Synod of
Arles, in the Bonner Zeitschrift fiir Philos. und kathol, Theol. Heft 26, S. 64.
5 C,, 23, causa vii. q. 1, and ὁ. 3, Dist. 71.: :
* Ps. xv. (LAX. xiv.) δ ....
NICEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 425
an example the teaching given about a loan at interest. Ac-
cording to Ezekiel,’ says Tertullian, he is declared: just who
does not lend his money upon usury, and who does not take
what comes to him from it; that is to say, the interest. By
these words of the prophet,-God had’ prepared forthe: perfec-
tion of the New Testament..’° In the Old, men had been taught
that they should not make gain by lending money, and in the
New that they should even bear the loss of what they had lent.”
Clement of Alexandria expresses himself in the same way :
“ The law forbids to take usury from a, brother, and. not only
from a brother by nature, but also from one who is of the
same religion as ourselves, or who is one ‘of the same nation
as ourselves, and it looks upon lending money at interest as
unjust: unfortunate persons should rather be assisted. with
open hand and open heart.” ὃ
In taking account of the prohibitions declared by the iewith
law against lending at interest, the customs of that time must
have filled the Christian mind with horror of this questus. As
in the Jewish language there is only one word to express
usury and lending at interest, so with the. Romans the word
jenus was also ominous in its double meaning. During the
last period of the republic and under the emperors, the legal
and mildest interest was twelve per cent., or, as the Romans
called it, interest by month, or wswra centesima ; but some-
times it increased to twenty-four per cent., bine centesine,
and even to forty-eight per cent., guaterne. centesime.* Horace
speaks even of a certain Fufidius, who demanded sixty per
cent. ; and what is remarkable is, that he speaks of this Fufi-
dius when on the subject of apothecaries.” As this exorbi-
tant interest was generally paid at the beginning of the month,
the reason why Ovid speaks of the teloves and: “Horace Of ee
tristes Kalendas, is explained.°®
The early Christians knew this loan at interest but little ;
they also kept. themselves. from it conscientiously, so long. as
that brotherly love. prevailed from which: had come a com-
munity of goods. But unhappily other Christians became apt
1 xviii. 8. 2 Tertull. adv. Mare. iv. 17. 3 Stromat. ii. 478, Pott.
. 8 Cicero, ia. Verr. iii. 70, Att. vi. 2. 51 Satyr. 2. 1-14.
6 Cf. Adam’s Roman Antiquities, and Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 404.
426 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
scholars of the heathen in this:matter. . It was most blame-
worthy in. the clergy, whose savings, according to canon law,
belonged to the. poor and: to: the Church, and least of all
ought. to be abused to usurious gain through the oppression
of the poor.. Therefore the forty-fourth (or forty-third) apos-
tolical canon gave this order: “A bishop, priest, or deacon
who receives interest for money lent, must cease from this
traffic under pain of deposition ;” and. the Council of Arles,
held in 314, says in the twelfth canon: De ministris, qui
fenerant, placuit, eos guata formam divinitus datam a com-
munione abstinere. The seventeenth canon of Niczea also for-
bids all the clergy to lend money on interest; we say to all the
clergy, because in the preceding canon we:‘have shown that by
the words ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενοι the clergy must be under-
stood. The Synod, fearing lest the clergy should in future
practise usury in a hidden and underhand manner, was careful
at the end of the canon to define the different sorts of usury
which are forbidden.’ |
The seventeenth canon of Nicza is found twice in the Cor-
pus juris canonici.”
Can. 18.
Ἦλθεν eis τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ μεγάλην σύνοδον, ὅτι ἔν τισι τόποις
καὶ πόλεσι τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τὴν Εὐχαριστίαν οἱ διάκονοι
διδόασιν, ὅπερ οὔτε ὁ κανὼν οὔτε ἡ συνήθεια παρέδωκε, τοὺς
ἐξουσίαν. μὴ ἔχοντας προσφέρειν τοῖς προσφέρουσι διδόναι τὸ
σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. κἀκεῖνο δὲ ἐγνωρίσθη, ὅτι ἤδη τινὲς τῶν
'διακόνων καὶ πρὸ τῶν ἐπισκόπων τῆς Εὐχαριστίας ἅπτονται.
Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἅπαντα περιῃρήσθω" καὶ ἐμμενέτωσαν οἱ διά-
κονοι τοῖς ἰδίοις μέτροις, εἰδότες ὅτε τοῦ μὲν ἐπισκόπου ὑπηρέται
εἰσὶ, τῶν δὲ πρεσβυτέρων ἐλάττους τυγχάνουσι" λαμβανέτωσαν
"δὲ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τὴν Εὐχαριστίαν μετὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους,
ἢ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου διδόντος αὐτοῖς ἢ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου. ἀλλὰ μηδὲ
καθῆσθαι ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἐξέστω τοῖς διακόνοις" παρὰ
“κανόνα yap: καὶ παρὰ τάξιν ἐστι. TO γινόμενον, Εἰ δέ τις μὴ
θέλοι. πειθαρχεῖν. καὶ μετὰ τούτους. τοὺς ὅρους, πεπαύσθω τῆς
διακονίας.
1 On the opinions of the old Fathers on the subject of loans at interest, see
the author’s dissertation in the Quartalschrift, 1841, 5. 405 ff:, and Beitr ἫΝ i, 91.
3.0, 2, Dist. 47, and 6.18, causa xiv. q. 4.
NICZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 427
“Tt has come to the knowledge of the holy and great: Synod,
that in certain places and cities deacons administer the Eucha-
rist to priests, although it ‘is contrary to:the canons and to
custom to have the body of Christ distributed to those who offer
the sacrifice by those who cannot offer ‘it: ‘The Synod has also
learned that some deacons receive the Eucharist even before
the bishops. This must all now cease: the deacons must re-
main within ‘the limits of their functions, and remember that
they are the assistants of the bishops; and only come after the
priests. ‘They must receive the Eucharist in accordance with
rule; after the priests—a bishop or a priest administering it to
them. The deacons ought no longer to sit among the priests,
for this is against rule and order. If any one refuses to obey
after these ‘rules have been promulgated, let him pe his
diaconate.”
Justin Martyr’ declares that in the primitive Church ‘the
deacons were in the habit of administering to each one of
those present the consecrated bread and the holy chalice.
Later it was the bishop or the celebrating priest who ad-
ministered the holy bread, and the deacon administered only
the chalice: this is what the Apostolical Constitutions order.”
We see that this was still the custom in the time ofS.
Cyprian, by. this sentence taken from his work de Lapsis::
Solemnibus adimpletis calicem diaconus offerre preesentibus οωρτί.
It is evident that the word offerre cannot ‘signify here to cele-
brate the holy sacrifice, but merely to administer ; the ex-
pression solemnibus adimpletis: shows that the divine service
was already. finished, and consequently there: is no question
here of celebrating, but merely of administering ‘the chalice
for communion. In other analogous passages this meaning
of offerre-is not so clearly indicated, and thence’ has arisen
the mistake that the deacons could also offer the holy. sacri-
fice” . It must not be-forgotten, however, that certain deacons
did in fact venture to offer the holy sacrifice ; for the first
‘Council of -Arles says in its ‘fifteenth canon::De diaconibus
quos cognovimus multis locis offerre, placuit-minime . fiert debere.
It is not unlikely that during the persecution of Diocletian,
1 Apologia, i. Nos. 65,.67, 0 ἢ Ὁ . Lib. viii. ch. 1
το SCf, Binterim, Denkw. Bd. i. ΤᾺ], i. 5. 357 i. :
428 τος HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
‘when very many bishops.and priests had been driven away
or put to death, some deacon allowed himself to celebrate the
eucharistic sacrifice : but such an act was altogether opposed
to the spirit and rules of the primitive Church... The Apos-
tolical Constitutions show. very plainly that it is forbidden
for deacons to pronounce the blessing and to offer the holy
sacrifice (benedicere.et offerre). They could only fulfil the
duties indicated by their name διάκονος But it very pro-
bably happened that in some places the deacon had over-
stepped the limit of his powers, and for that reason had
rendered necessary the prohibition of the Council of Arles.
I know, indeed, that Binterim has wished to explain this
canon of the Council of Arles in another way.? He supposes
that the rebuke is not annexed to the word offerre, but merely
the words multis locis, and he explains the canon as follows:
“In future, the deacon must no longer celebrate and -ad-
minister the holy Eucharist to other congregations besides his
own.” I cannot believe in the accuracy of this explanation,
and: Binterim has certainly done violence to the text of the
Council of Arles.
But besides, this canon of Nicza says nothing directly of
this pretension of the deacon to wish to consecrate: it has
rather in view certain other abuses; and we know from
another source, that in Christian antiquity there was often
complaint of the pride of deacons.? The deacons of the city
of Rome have especially been reproached on account of pride,
and the Council of Arles says on this subject in its eighteenth
canon: De diaconibus urbicis, ut non sibi tantum presumant,
sed honorem wpresbyteris reservent, ut sine conscientia ipsorum
nihil tale faciant. It has been supposed that these pre-
sumptuous deacons of the city of Rome had. given occasion
for the passing of this canon, and that it was decreed on the
motion of the two Roman priests who represented the Pope
at the Council of Niceea.*
In the primitive Church, the holy Litondy! was vial
celebrated by a single person, more frequently by.the bishop,
1 Constitut. apostolice, viii. 28.
2 Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. i. Thi. i. S. 860. See above, sec. 15. "Ὁ
3 Of. Van Espen, Com. incan. p. 101. © Cf. Van Espen, Le. p. 101.
NICZA! CONTENTS OF THE UANONS. 429
or by ἃ priest when the bishop was hindered from being
present ; but the other priests were not merely present at the
holy sacrifice, as is the custom now: they were besides con-
sacrificantes ; they did what newly ordained priests do now,
when they celebrate together with the bishop the mass at
their ordination! These consacrificing priests ought to have
received the communion from the hands of the celebrant ;
but in some places the deacons had taken upon themselves
the right of administering the holy communion to priests as
well as to the people, and this is the first abuse which the
canon condemns.” The second abuse of which they were
euilty was, that they τῆς Evyapiotias ἅπτονται before the
bishop. It is doubtful what these words mean, The pseudo-
Isidore, Zonaras, and Balsamon give the meaning which most
naturally presents itself: “They go so far as to take the
Eucharist before the bishop.” The Prisca, as well as Diony-
sius the Less and others, translate ἅπτονται by contingant,
that is to say, towch ; and Van Espen interprets the canon in
this way: “The deacons touch (but do not partake of) the
holy Eucharist before the bishop.” But the word ἅπτονται
includes the idea of partaking as well, as the subsequent
words in the canon prove, which settle the order to be fol-
lowed in the reception of the Eucharist, and show us conse-
quently that: these words τῆς Evyapiotias ἅπτονται signify
Eucharistiam sumere. It may be asked how it could happen
that the deacon could communicate before the bishop. When
the bishop himself celebrated, this was clearly impossible;
but it very often happened that the bishop caused one of his
priests to celebrate, and contented himself with being present
at the holy sacrifice. The same thing would happen if one
bishop visited another, and was present at divine service.
In both cases the bishop would receive the communion im-
mediately after the celebrant, and before the priests. But if
a deacon undertook to administer the communion to the
priests, and to the bishop as well, it would happen that the
bishop would not receive the communion until after the
1 Cf. Morinus, de SS. ordinatione, Part iii. exercit. 8.
2 According to the Apostolical Constitutions, the deacons ould not ad.
minister the sacred host even to the laity.
430 - HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
deacon, for he would always ‘begin by communicating himself
before administering the communion to others ; and this is the:
abuse which the Council found it necessary to. forbid.
- The third encroachment of which the deacons were guilty
had reference to their places in church. Several among them
had placed themselves among the priests. The Synod con-
demns this abuse, and finishes with this threat : “Whoever
shall not obey, after the publication of these rules, shall be
removed from his diaconate.” Unhappily they were not
strictly observed ; for even after the Council of Nica com-
plaints continued to be made of the pride of the deacons, and
S. Jerome says that “ he saw at Rome a deacon who’ took his
place among the priests, and who at table gave his blessing
to the priests.”?
Van Espen remarks with truth that this canon of dis-
cipline proves the belief of the Council of Nicea in three
oreat dogmatic truths: (1.) The Council of Nicsea saw in the
Eucharist the body of Christ; (2.) It called the eucharistic
service a sacrifice (προσφέρειν) ; and (3.) It concedes to
bishops and priests alone the power of consecrating.
This canon is found in the Corpus juris canonict.
Can. 19.
Περὶ τῶν Παυλιανισάντων, εἶτα προσφυγόντων τῇ καθολικῇ
᾿Εκκλησίᾳ, δρος ἐκτέθειται, ἀναβαπτίζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐξάπαντος"
εἰ δέ τινες ἐν τῷ παρεληλυθότι χρόνῳ ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ἐξητάσ-
θησαν, εἰ μὲν ἄμεμπτοι καὶ ἀνεπίληπτοι φανεῖεν, ἀναβαπτισ-
θέντες χειροτονείσθωσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ τῆς καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας
ἐπισκόπου" εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀνάκρισις ἀνεπιτηδείους αὐτοὺς εὑρίσκοι,
καθαιρεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς προσήκει. «Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν
διακονισσῶν, καὶ ὅλως περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ κακόνι ἐξεταζομένων ὁ
αὐτὸς τύπος παραφυλαχθήσεται. ᾿Εμνήσθημεν δὲ διακονισσῶν
τῶν ἐν τῷ σχήματι ἐξετασθεισῶν, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ χειροθεσίαν τινὰ
ἔχουσιν, ὥστε ἐξάπαντος ἐν τοῖς λαϊκοῖς αὐτὰς ἐξετάζεσθαι.
“ With respect to the Paulianists, who wish to return to the
Catholic Church, the rule which orders them to be re-baptized
must be observed. If some among them were formerly (as
1 Hieron. Epist. 85, ad Evagr. ; Van Espen, Uc. p. 102,
2. 14, Dist. 98.
NICZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 431
Paulianists) members of the clergy, they must be re-ordained
by the bishop of the Catholic Church after they have been
re-baptized, if they have been blameless and not condemned.
If, on inquiry, they are found to be unworthy, they must be
deposed.. The same will be done with respect to the dea-
conesses ; and in general, the present rule will be observed for
411 those who are on the list of the Church. We remind
those deaconesses who are in this position, that as they have
not been. ordained, they must be classed merely among the
laity.” :
By Paulianists must be understood: the followers of Paul
of Samosata, the anti-Trinitarian who, about the year 260,
had been made Bishop of Antioch, but had been deposed by
a great Synod in 269. As Paul of Samosata was heretical
in his teaching on the Holy Trinity, the Synod of Nica
applied here the decree passed by the Council of Arles in its
eighth canon: Si ad Eeclesiam aliquis de herest venerit, inter-
rogent eum symbolum ; et si perviderint, eum in Patre et Filio
et Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum, manus e+ tantum imponatur
ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod, st interrogatus non respon-
derit hane Trinitatem, baptizetur.
The Samosatans, according to §, Athanasius, named the
Father, Son,.and Holy Spirit in administering baptism ;1 but
as they gave a false meaning to the baptismal formula, and
did not use the words Son and Holy Spirit in the usual
sense, the Council of Nica, like 5. Athanasius himself, consi-
dered their baptism as invalid. Pope Innocent the First said
of them in his twenty-second epistle, “They do not baptize
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit,”
wishing above all to make it understood by that, that they
gave to these names an altogether false signification.?
The Synod of Nicza, regarding the baptism of the Paulian-
ists as invalid, would logically affirm that their ordinations
were also without value; for he who is not really baptized
can clearly neither give nor receive holy orders. Accordingly
the Synod orders that the Paulianist clergy should be bap-
tized ; but. by a wise condescension they permit those among
these clergy who have received Catholic baptism, and who
1 Athanas. Orat. ii. contra Arian. No. 43, 2 Cf. Tillemont, 1.6. iv. 126.
432 _ HISTORY. OF THE COUNCILS. °
have given proofs of ability and of good conduct, to be
ordained as clergy of the Catholic Church. Those who have
not these conditions are to be excluded.
The rest of the text presents insurmountable difficulties,
if the reading of the Greek manuscripts be adopted, ὡσαύτως
καὶ περὶ τῶν διακονισσῶν. In this case, in fact, the canon
would order: The deaconesses of the Paulianists can, if they
are of irreproachable ‘manners, retain their charge, and be
ardained afresh. But this sentence would be in direct con-
tradiction to the end of the canon, which declares that the
deaconesses have received no ordination, and ought to be
considered as simply laity. The difficulty disappears, if in
the first sentence we read with Gelasius,’ διακόνων instead of
διακονισσῶν. The Prisca, with Theilo. and Thearistus, who
in 419 translated the canons of Nica for the bishops of
Africa, have adopted the same reading as Gelasius. The
pseudo-Isidore and Gratian® have done the same; whilst
Rufinus has not translated this passage, and Dionysius the
Less has read διακονισσῶν.
_ Van Espen has tried to assign an intelligible meaning to
this canon, without accepting the variation adopted by so
great a number of authors.2 According to him, the Synod
meant to say this in the last sentence: “ We have mentioned
above in particular the deaconesses, because it would not have
been otherwise possible to grant them the conditions which
have been made for the Paulianist clergy, and because they
would have been looked upon as simple lay-persons, seeing
that- they have not been ordained.” It is easy to see that
Van Espen here insetts a meaning which is foreign to the
text. .Aubespine* has attempted another explanation, which
has been in later times adopted by Neander.? He supposes
that the deaconesses of the Paulianists were of two kinds :
those who were really ordained, and those widows who had
never received ordination, and who had only by an abuse the
name of deaconesses. The canon would continue the first
in their charge, and place the second among the laity. But
1 Mansi, ii. 906. 3 Corpus juris, c. 52, causa 1, queesi. 1.
22 Van Espen, l.c. p. 108. 4 Tillemont, ἴ.6. p. 362.
5 Neander,‘/.c. 5, 322, a ee
NICZA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS, 433
the text itself does not make the least allusion to these two
kinds of deaconesses; and what Neander alleges against the
opinion of those who read διακόνων instead of διακονισσῶν has
no weight. According to him, it would have been super-
fluous to speak again specially of the deacons in this passage,
since the clergy in general had already been spoken of in
that which precedes. It may be answered, that if the Synod
wished to make it understood that the present rules extended
to all degrees of the clergy, there is an explanation of its
reason for making express mention of the deacons and in-
ferior clergy.
The words of the canon, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ χειροθεσίαν τινὰ ἔχουσιν,
still make the meaning of the sense difficult, and appear
opposed to the variation we have adopted. It cannot be
denied that the <Apostolical Constitutions really speak of the
ordination of deaconesses by the imposition of hands,’ and the
Council of Chalcedon speaks of it still more clearly in its
fifteenth canon. According to this canon, on the contrary,
‘the deaconesses would not have received any imposition of
hands. Valesius? and Van Espen® have sought to solve this
difficulty by saying that, at the time of the Council of Nicza,
the custom had not yet been introduced of laying hands on
deaconesses. But the Apostolical Constitutions testify to the
contrary. Aubespine has put forward another explanation;
which proceeds from his theory analysed above: he maintains
that the deaconesses of the Catholic Church were truly
ordained by the imposition of hands, but that among the
Paulianists there were two classes of deaconesses, an ordained
and an unordained. It seems to us that a third solution
of this difficulty might be found, put forward by Baronius,
and adopted by Justell.® In supposing that at the time of
the Council of Nicza the deaconesses received imposition of
hands, it must, however, be remembered that this act was
essentially different from clerical ordination properly so called :
it was a mere benediction, not an ordination. In describing,
1 Constitut. Apostol. viii. 19.
2 Annotat. ad Sozom. Hist. Eccl. viii. 9. 3 Van Espen, 1.6: p. 108.
4 Cf. Bingham, Origines, etc., i. 356. 5 Ad ann. 34, No. 288.
6 Bingham, lc. p. 359.
2Ε
434 -HISWORY OF THE COUNCILS.
then, clerical ordination by χειροθεσία sensu strictiori, it might
be said that the deaconesses had received no χειροθεσία.
The decree against the Meletians, and the eighth canon of
Nica against the Novatians, prove that the Fathers of Niceea
took the word χειροθεσίαὰ as sybonymous with mere bene-
diction.
Can. 20.
’ Ered?) τινές εἰσιν ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ γόνυ κλίνοντες καὶ ἐν ταῖς
τῆς πεντεκοστῆς ἡμέραις" ὑπὲρ τοῦ πάντα ἐν πάσῃ παροικίᾳ
φυλάττεσθαι, ἑστῶτας ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀπο-
διδόναι τῷ Θεῷ.
“ As some kneel on the Lord’s day and on the days of
Pentecost, the holy Synod has decided that, for the observ-
ance of a general rule, all shall offer their prayers to God
standing.”
Tertullian says in the third chapter of his book de Corona,
that Christians considered it wrong to pray kneeling on Sun-
days. This liberty of remaining siending he adds, is granted
us from Easter to Pentecost. By the seca Tenpeaiic) the
single day of Pentecost must not be understood, but rather
the whole time between Easter and Pentecost. It is thus,
for example, that S. Basil the Great’ speaks of the seven
weeks of the τῆς ἱερᾶς Πεντηκοστῆς. Instead, then, of pray-
ing kneeling, as they did on other days, Christians prayed
standing on Sundays and during Eastertide. They were
moved in that by a symbolical motive: they celebrated
during these days the remembrance of the resurrection of
Christ, and consequently our own deliverance through His
resurrection, All the Churches did not, however, adopt this
practice ; for we see in the Acts of the Apostles ἢ that S, Paul
prayed kneeling during the time between Easter and Pente-
cost. The Council of Ni iceea wished to make the usual prac-
tice the universal law; and the later Fathers of the Church,
e.g. Ambrose and Basil, show * that this custom spread more
and more. The Catholic Church has preserved to our days
1 De Spiritu sancto, c. 27,
2 See Suicer’s Thesaraus at the word rice.
3 xx, 86 and xxi. 5.
4 Cf. Van Espen, lc. p. 104.
NICZA!: PAPHNUTIUS AND THE LAW OF CELIBACY. (435
‘the principal direction of this canon, and it has’ been insentaid
in the Corpus juris canonici,* :
Src. 43. Paphnutius andthe projected Law of Celibacy.
Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius affirm? that the Synod of
Nicea, as well as that of Elvira (can. 33), desired to passa
law respecting celibacy. This law was to forbid all bishops,
priests, and deacons (Sozomen adds subdeacons), who were
married at the time of their ordination, to continue to live with
their wives. But, say these historians, the law was opposed
openly and decidedly by Paphnutius, bishop of a city of the
Upper Thebais in Egypt, a man of a high reputation, who
had. lost an eye during the persecution under Maximian.®
He was also celebrated for his miracles, and was held in so
great respect by the Emperor, that the latter often kissed the
empty socket of the lost eye* Paphnutius declared with a
loud voice, “that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon
the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of them-
selves honourable and undefiled; that the Church ought not
to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in
_absolute continency: in this way (by not prohibiting married
intercourse) the virtue of the wife would be much more cer-
tainly preserved (viz. the wife of a clergyman, because she
might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from her
married intercourse).? The intercourse of a man with his
lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would there-
fore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the
Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being
married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but those
clergy who had been married only once, as laymen, were not
. to be separated from their wives (Gelasius adds, or being only
_a reader or cantor).” This discourse of Paphnutius made so
much the more impression, because he had neyer lived in
matrimony himself, and had had no conjugal intercourse.
16, 13, Dist. 3, de consecratione. ;
? Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 11; Sozom. Hist. Hecl. 1, 23; Gelas. Cyzic.. Hist.
Concilit Nic. ii. 32: in Mansi, ii. 906, and in Hard. i. 438.
3 Rufin. Hist.. Heel. i, (x.) 4. | * Rufin. le
5 Compare the sixty-fifth canon of Elvire,
“436 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Paphnutius, indeed, had been brought up in a monastery, and
his great purity of manners had rendered him especially
celebrated. Therefore the Council took the serious words of
the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion
upon the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of
deciding the point as he would.
If this account be true, we must conclude that a law was
proposed to the Council of Nicza the same as one which had
been carried twenty years previously at Elvira, in Spain: this
coincidence would lead us to believe that it was the Spaniard
Hosius who proposed the law respecting celibacy at Nicza.
The discourse ascribed to Paphnutius, and the consequent
decision of the Synod, agree very well with the text of the
Apostolic Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the
Greek Church in respect to celibacy.? The Greek Church as
well as the Latin accepted the ‘principle, that whoever had
taken holy orders before marriage, ought not to be married
afterwards. In the Latin Church, bishops, priests, deacons,
and even subdeacons,’ were considered to be subject to this
law, because the latter were at a very early period reckoned
among the higher servants of the Church, which was not the
case in the Greek Church.4 The Gréek Church went so far as
to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if previously
to it they had expressly obtained from their bishop permission
to do so. The Council of Ancyra affirms this (c. 10). We
see that the Greek Church wished to leave the bishops free to
decide the matter; but in reference to priests, it also pro-
hibited them from marrying after their ordination.’
Therefore, whilst. the Latin Church exacted of those pre-
senting themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that
they should not continue to live with their wives if they were
married, the Greek Church gave no such prohibition; but if
the wife of an ordained clergyman died, the Greek Church
1Cf. Drey, Neue untersuchungen iiber die Constitutionen und Canonen der
Apostel, S. 57 and 310. |
2 vi. 17. Upon the question of celibacy and ecclesiastical legislation, cf. ἃ
-flissertation by the author, in der neuen Sion, 1853, Nr. 21 ff. Hefele treats
of what relates to the Latin Church as well as to the Greek.
3 Of. Concil. Elvir. can. 33. 4 Cf. Drey, S. 311, de.
5 Cf. Drey, Uc. S. 309. See also the rule of the Council of Neocisarea, c. 1.
NICZA: PAPHNUTIUS AND THE LAW OF CELIBACY. 437
allowed no second marriage. The Apostolic Constitutions *
decided this point in the same way. ΤῸ leave their wives?
from a pretext of piety was also forbidden to Greek priests ;
and the Synod of Gangra (c. 4) took up the defence of mar-
ried priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius, however,
was not alone among the Greeks in opposing the marriage
of all clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek
Church the Latin discipline on this point. §S. Epiphanius also
inclined towards this side The Greek Church did not,
however, adopt this rigour in reference to priests, deacons,
and subdeacons; but by degrees it came to be required of
bishops, and of the higher order of clergy in general, that they
should live in celibacy. Yet this was not until after the
compilation of the Apostolic Canons (c. 5) and of the Constitu-
tions (l.c.) ; for in those documents mention is made of bishops
living in wedlock, and Church history shows that there were
married bishops, for instance Synesius, in the fifth century.
But it is fair to remark, even as to Synesius, that he made it
an express condition of his acceptation, on his election to the
episcopate, that he might continue to live the married life*
Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously require
this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping
the episcopal office; which would seem to imply that in his
time Greek bishops had already begun to live in celibacy.
At the Trullan Synod (ο. 13) the Greek Church finally settled
the question of the marriage of priests. Baronius,” Valesius,°
and other historians, have considered the account of the part
taken by Paphnutius to be apocryphal. SBaronius says, that
as the Council of Niczea in its third canon gave a law upon
celibacy, it is quite impossible to admit that it would alter
such a law on account of Paphnutius. But Baronius is mis-
taken in seeing a law upon celibacy in that third canon: he
thought it to be so, because, when mentioning the women who
might live in the clergyman’s house—his mother, sister, etc.—
1 Const. vi. 17. 2 Canones Apostol. n. 6.
+ Epiphan. a Jidei, n. 21, at the end of his book de Heeresibus, Cf
ΜΗ; l.c. S. 312; Baron. ad ann. 58, π. 20.
4 Thomassin, Vetus et nova Eccl. Disciplina, P, i. lib, ii, ὦ, 60, n. 16."
δ Ad ann, 58, ἢ, 21, 6 Annotat. ad Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 11,
438° τ δ Ὁ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, -
the carion does not say a word about the wife. It had no
occasion to mention her; -it was referring to the συνεισάκτοι,
whilst these συνεισάκτοι. and married women have nothing in
common. Natalis Alexander gives this anecdote about Paph-
nutius in full:' he desired. to refute Bellarmin, who consi-
dered it to be untrue,’and an invention of Socrates to please
the Novatians. Natalis Alexander often maintains erroneous
opinions, and on the present question he deserves no confi-
dence. If,as 5. Epiphanius? relates, the Novatians maintained
that the clergy might be married exactly like the Jaity, it
cannot be said that Socrates shared that opinion, since he
says, or rather makes Paphnutius say, that, according to ancient
tradition, those not married at the time of ondiiia Sibi should
not be so subsequently. Moreover, if it may be said that’
Socrates had a partial sympathy with the Novatians, he cer-
tainly cannot be considered as belonging to them, still less
ean he be accused of falsifying history in their favour. He
may sometimes have propounded erroneous opinions, but there
is a great difference between that and the invention of a whole
story.2 Valesius especially makes use of the argument ex
silentio against Socrates.’ (a.) Rufinus, he says, gives many
particulars about Paphnutius in his History of the Church :*
he mentions his martyrdom, his miracles, and the Emperor’s
reverence for him, but not a single word of the business about
celibacy. (b.) The name of Paphnutius is wanting in the list of
Egyptian bishops present at the Synod. These two arguments
of Valesius are very weak; the second has the authority of
Rufinus himself against it; who expressly says that. Bishop
Paphnutius was present at the Council of Nica. If Valesius
means. by ists only the signatures at the end of the acts of the
Council, this proves nothing ; for these lists are very imperfect,
and ‘it is well known that many bishops whose names are not
among these signatures were present at Niceea.” This argument
ex silentio is evidently insufficient to prove that the anecdote
about Paphnutius must be rejected as false, seeing that it is
in n perfect harmony with the practice’ of the ancient’ Church,
1 Hist. Eccl. sec. iv. vol. iv. Diss. 19, p. 389 sqq-, ed. Venet. 1778,"
* Epiphan. Heres. 59, 9. 4. 3 Natal. Alex. le. p. 39}. -
4Rufin. i. 4. | 5 See above, sec. 3%. «
NICAA: SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 439
and especially of the Greek Church, on the subject of clerical
marriages. On the other hand, Thomassin pretends: that there
was no such practice,’ and endeavours to prove by quotations
from 5. Epiphanius, 5. Jerome, Eusebius, and 8. John Chry-
sostom, that even in the East priests who were married. at the
time of their ordination were prohibited from continuing to
live with their wives? The texts quoted by Thomassin prove
only that the Greeks gave especial honour to priests living in
perfect continency, but they do not prove that this continence
was a duty incumbent upon all priests; and so much the less,
as the fifth and twenty-fifth apostolic canons, the fourth
canon. of Gangra, and the thirteenth of the Trullan Synod,
demonstrate clearly enough what was the universal custom of
the Greek Church on this point. Lupus and Phillips * explain’
the words of Paphnutius in another sense. According to them,
the Egyptian bishop was not speaking in a general way: he
simply desired that the contemplated law should not include
the subdeacons. But this explanation does not agree with
the extracts quoted from Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius, who
believe Paphnutius intended deacons and priests as well.
Sec. 44, Conclusion: Spurious Documents.
Tt was probably at the conclusion of its business that the
Council of Niczea sent to the bishops of Egypt and Libya the
official letter containing its decisions relative to the three
ereat questions which it had to decide, viz. concerning Arian-
ism, the Meletian schism, and the celebration of Easter.
When the Synod. had completed its business, the Emperor
Constantine celebrated: his vicennalia, that is, the twentieth
anniversary of his accession to the empire.° Consequently
this festival shows the terminus ad quem of the Council. Con-
stantine was declared Emperor during the summer of 306 ;
his vicennalia must: therefore have taken. place during the
summer or autumn of 325, In order to testify his peculiar.
ere 27.c. τι. 1-14 inel.
3 Kirchenr. Bd. i. K. 64, note 4; and Kir chenlex, von Wetzer und Welte,
art. Célibat, Bd. ii. S. 660. a
4 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 9. See above, secs. 23, 37, and 40,
5 Bevereg. Uc. ii, 43 Ὁ,
440 . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
respect for the Fathers of Nicwa, ὧι. for the Synod itself, the
Emperor invited all the bishops to a splendid repast in the
imperial palace. A hedge was formed of a multitude of sol-
diers with drawn swords ; and Eusebius can find no words to
describe the beauty of the scene—to tell how the men of God
passed through the imperial apartments without any fear,
through the midst of all these swords. At the conclusion of
the banquet, each bishop received rich presents from the Em-
peror. Some days afterwards, Constantine commanded another
session to be held, at which he appeared in person, to exhort
the bishops to use every endeavour for the maintenance of
peace ; he then asked them to remember him in their prayers,
and finally gave them all permission to return home. They
hastened to do so; and filled with joy at the great work of
pacification just concluded by the Emperor and the Council,
they made known its resolutions? in their own countries.
On his part the Emperor also sent many letters, either in a
general way to all the Churches, or to the bishops who had
not been present at the Council; and in these letters he de-
clared that the decrees of the Council were to be considered
laws of the empire. Eusebius, Socrates, and Gelasius have
preserved three of these imperial edicts :* in the first, Con-
stantine expresses his conviction that the Nicene decrees were
inspired by the Holy Spirit; which shows the great authority
and esteem in which the decisions of Niczea were held from
the very beginning. 8S. Athanasius gives similar testimony.
He says, in the letter which he sent to the African bishops,.
in the name of ninety bishops assembled in synod: “ It (the
Synod of Nicsea) has been received by the whole world (πᾶσα
ἡ οἰκουμένη) ; and as several synods are just now being assem-.
dled, it has been acknowledged by the faithful in Dalmatia,
Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, the other islands, Sicily,
Cyprus, Pamphilia, Lycia, Isauria, all Egypt, Libya, and the
greater part of Arabia.”* 5. Athanasius expresses himself in
like manner in his letter to the Emperor Jovian in 363:° he
1 Eusebii Vita Const. iii. 15, 16. 3 Euseb. J.c. Ὁ. 20.
3 Socrat. Hist. Hecl. i. 9; Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 17-19 ; Gelas. 1,6. 11. 363
'n Mansi, ii. 919 sqq. ; Hard. i. 445 sqq. ‘
* Athanasii Hp. ad Afros, c. i. 3 Opp. vol. i. P. 11, p. 712, ed Patay.
* Ep. ad Jovian. ; Opp. lc. p. 628.
NICZA: SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 441
often calls the Synod of Niceea an cecumenical synod, adding
that a universal synod had been convoked, that provincial
councils, which might easily fall into error, might not have to
decide on so important a subject as Arianism.’ Finally, he
calls the Council of Nicwa “a true pillar, and a monument
of the victory obtained over every heresy.”? Other Fathers
of the Church, living in the fourth or fifth centuries, speak of
the Council of Nicza in the same terms as S. Athanasius,
showing the greatest respect for its decisions. "We may men-
tion Ambrose, Chrysostom, and especially Pope Leo the Great,
who wrote as follows; Sancti illi et venerabiles patres, qui in
urbe Nicena, sacrilego Ario cum sua impietate damnato, man-
suras usque in finem mundi leges ecelesiasticorum canonum
condiderunt, et apud nos et in toto orbe terrarum in suis consti-
tutionibus vivunt ; et st quid usquam aliter, quam illi statuere,
prasumitur, sine cunctatione cassatur: ut que ad perpetuam utilt-
tatem generaliter instituta sunt, nulla commutatione varientur.®
Pope Leo therefore considered the authority of the Nicene
canons to be everlasting; and he says in the same epistle
(ch, 2), that they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and that
no subsequent council, however great, could be compared to it,
still less preferred to it. (Leo here especially alludes to the:
fourth Gicumenical Council.) Eastern Christians had so much
reverence for the Council of Nicea, that the Greeks, Syrians,
and Egyptians even established a festival for the purpose of
perpetuating the remembrance of this assemblage of 318
bishops at Niceea, The Greeks kept this festival on the Sun-
day before Pentecost, the Syrians in the month of July, the
Egyptians in November.* ‘Tillemont says truly: “If one
wished to collect all the existing proofs of the great venera-
tion in which the Council of Nicsea was held, the enumera-
tion would never end, In all ages, with the exception of a few
heretics, this sacred assembly at Niceea has never been spoken
of but with the greatest respect,” ὅ 3
1. Opp. vol. i. Ῥ i. p. 324, n. 7; p. 102, π΄ 7; p. 114, n. 25; p. 166, n. 4;
vol. i. P, fi. p, 712, a, ὦ
1c. pp. 718 and 720. ο *% Leo, M. Zp. 106, n. 4, ed. Baller. ὃ. i. p. 1165,
4 Tillemont,-/.c. p, 293 ; Baron, ad ann. 325, n. 185.
6Tillemont, le
442° HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
- The words of Pope Leo which we have quoted especially
show the high esteem in which Rome and the Popes held the
Council of Ni icewa. The acts of the Synod were first signed,
as before said, by the representatives of the Holy See ; and it
is perfectly certain that Pope Silvester afterwards shtiGtioned
what his legates had done. The only question is, whether the’
Council of Niceea asked for a formal approbation, and whether
it was granted in answer to their request. Some writers
have answered this question in the affirmative; but in order
to establish their opinion, have relied upon a set of spurious’
documents. These are: 1st, A pretended letter from Hosius,
Macarius of Jerusalem, and the two Roman priests Victor
and Vincentius, addressed to Pope Silvester, in the name of
the whole Synod. The letter says, “ that the Pope ought to
convoke a Roman synod, in order to confirm the decisions of
the Council of Nicea.”* 2d, The answer of Pope Silvester,
and his decree of confirmation.? 3d, Another letter from Pope
Silvester, of similar contents.’ 4th, The acts of this pretended
third Roman Council, convoked to confirm the decisions of the
Council of Nica: this Council, composed of 275 bishops,
must have made some additions to the Nicene decrees.* To
these documents must be added, 5th, the Constitutio Silvestri,
proceeding from the pretended second Roman Council. © This
Council does not indeed speak of giving approval to the
Nicene decrees; but with this exception, it is almost identical
in its decisions and acts with those of the third Roman
Council? These five documents have been preserved in seve-
ral Μ58., at Rome, Kéln, or elsewhere: they have been repro-:
duced in almost all the collections of the Councils ; but now
all are unanimous in considering them to be spurious, as they
evidently are. They betray a period, a way of thinking, and
circumstances, later than those of the fourth century. \ The
barbarous, almost unintelligible Latin of these documents,
particularly points to a later century, and to a decay'in the
Latin language, which had not taken place at the time of the
Nicene Synod.
We may further observe on the subject of these documents : 3
1 Mansi, ii. 719. ‘ 2 Mansi, ii. 720, τ 8 Mansi, ii: 721.
4 Mansi, 1... 1082 ; Hard. i. 527, 5 Mansi, l.c. 615 sqq.
NICAA?) SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 443°
1. Concerning the first: (a.) Macarius of Jerusalem, in this
document, appears as the principal representative of the Synod’
of Nicwa; and he is, in fact, made to take precedence of the:
Patriarchs of Alexandria and of Antioch, who are not even
named. Now, at the period of the Council of Nicza, the see of
Jerusalem had no peculiar place of eminence. (8.) In the super-
scription, instead of “the Synod of Nica,” etc., the document
has the words, “ the 318,” etc.,an expression which was not in,
use at the time of the Council of Nicwa. (γ.) This document
is dated viii. Cal. Julias : we should therefore be led to conclude,
if we trusted to that date, that the Council asked the Holy See
for approval of its work a few days after its commencement.
2. Coustant and others prove the spuriousness of the second
document—namely, Silvester’s supposed confirmation of the
Synod—on the following grounds :—
(a.) There is in the sqocuinant a reference to the (false)
Easter canon of Victorinus (or Victorius) of Aquitania. Now
Victorinus did not flourish until 125 years later, about the
middle of the fifth century. It is true that Déllinger” has
recently offered a different opinion respecting this Victorinus,
suggesting that it is not Victorius of Aquitania who is re-
ferred to, but a Roman heretic (a Patripassian) of that name,
who lived at the beginning of the third century. This Vic-
torius was a contemporary of Pope Callistus and of the priest
(afterwards antipope) Hippolytus, and subsequently resisted the
Easter canon drawn up by the latter, which afterwards came
into use, and even the Church doctrine of the Trinity, In
favour of this theory is the fact, that in the fifth of these
forged documents Victorius is mentioned along with Callistus
and Hippolytus, and an anathema is pronounced upon all the
three. If Déollinger is right, as we cannot doubt, the argu-
ment of Coustant must fall away; but the spuriousness of
the document is still entirely beyond doubt, and has been
recognised by Dollinger.
(8) At the end of the document an sinicke false’ chrono-
logical date is given, Constantino VII. et Constantio Cesare IV:
ΤῊΝ “When Constantine became consul for the seventh
Wider, ἘΝ ας ale Chronologie, ‘Bd. i. 8. ΡΝ
5 In his Hippolytus, 8. 246 ff.
444 > -HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
time (A.D. 326), his son Constantius was invested with that
dienity for the first time, and not for the fourth. Such a
chronological error would certainly not have been committed
in a writing so important in the Roman archives.
_ 3. The spuriousness of the third document betrays itself
chiefly in the fact that it contains the anathema pronounced
upon Photinus of Sirmium, which was not put forth until the
year 351, at the first Synod of Sirmium.
4. The fourth document is rendered doubtful by the con-
sideration, that it is impossible for all the writers of ancient
times to have been silent on the subject of a Roman synod
so important, and at which 275 bishops were present.
Athanasius and Hilary speak ex professo of the synods of
that period; but neither of them says a word of this great
Roman Synod, nor gives the slightest intimation of it. Be-
sides, if we give credence to the superscription of this docu-
ment, the Synod must have been held in the presence of
Constantine the Great, whereas the Emperor was not once in
Rome during the whole of the year 325." But even if, as
Binius has suggested, the words presento Constantino have
been erroneously removed from the place where they were
followed by apud Nicenum, and placed in the title of this,
it cannot, however, be denied: (a.) That the decree passed
by this alleged Roman Synod, which orders that Easter shall
be celebrated between the 14th and 21st of Nisan, is non-
sensical and anti-Nicene. (8.) Equally incompatible with
the Nicene period is the rule that clerics are not to be
brought before a secular tribunal This privilegium fori was
at that time unknown. (¥.) Equally absurd is the ordinance
respecting the degrees in advancing to the episcopate or the
presbyterate, which directs that one must be an Ostzarius for
a year, twenty years a Leetor, ten years an EFzorcist, five years
an Acolyte, five years a Subdeacon, and five years a Deacon ;
that is to say, altogether forty-six years in the ministry, be-
fore he could become a priest. Such an absurdity was cer-
tainly never promulgated by a Roman council. - :
5. We have no need to give a particular account of the
supposed acts of an alleged second Roman Council in 324,
1 Ceillier, Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés, iv. 613.
NICZA: SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 445
which form the fifth document, as they say nothing of a con-
firmation of the Nicene Synod. As, however, this document
seems to have proceeded from the same pen as the other
four we may, by way of showing how little knowledge the
forger had of that period, simply point out that this second
Roman Council was professedly held during the Nicene
Synod, as is expressly stated in the Epilogue,” and that it
came to an end on the 30th of May 324, that is to say,a
whole year before the beginning of that of Nicza.
Coustant suggests® that all these documents must have
been forged in the sixth century. He has treated particu-
larly of the fifth of these spurious documents, and in his pre-
face* he suggests that it was composed soon after the time of
Pope Symmachus. Symmachus had been unjustly accused of
several crimes, but was acquitted by a Synod which met in
501 or 503; and at the same time the principle was asserted,
that the Pope could not be judged by other bishops. In
order to establish this principle and that of the forum privi-
legiatum, which is closely connected with it, Coustant says
they fabricated several documents, and among others this
fifth: the bad Latin in which it is written, and the fact
that it was discovered in a Lombard ms., have caused it to
be thought that it was composed by a Lombard residing at
Rome. A principal argument employed by Coustant to show
that this piece dated from the sixth century, the period during
which Victorinus of Aquitania lived, has been overthrown by
Dollinger’s hypothesis, to which we have referred.
All these documents are therefore without doubt apocry-
phal; but though they are apocryphal, we must not conclude
from this that all their contents are false, that is to say, that
the Council of Nicza never asked Pope Silvester to give his
approval to their decrees. Baronius thinks that this request
was really made,’ and on our part we think we can add to
his arguments the following observations :
1 Ballerini, de ontigquis collectionibus, etc., in Galland’s Sylloge dissert. de
vetustis canonum collectionibus, i. 394; Riaieuh, de collect.-can.- Isidori Merca:
toris, in Galland, Sylloge, l.c. ii. 11, 14,
ὃ Mansi, ii. 615.
* Lpistole Pree yea ed. Coustant. Pref. p. xxxvi:
4 99, 5 Ad ann. 325, n. 171 and 172
(446 ἦς HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. :
(a.) We know that the fourth C=cumenical’ Council, held
at Chalcedon, sent to Pope Leo their acts to be approved
‘by him. Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the
following manner to Leo: Gestorwm vis omnis et confirmatio
auctoritati vestre Beatitudinis fuerit reservata." The Council
speaks in the same way as Anatolius in the letter which they
wrote to the Pope: Omnem vobis gestorum vim insinuavimus,
ad comprobationem nostre svnceritatis, e ad ecorum, que a nobis
gesta sunt, firmitatem et consonantiam. The Emperor Marcian
also regarded this approval of the Pope as necessary for the
-decrees passed at Chalcedon; and he asked repeatedly and
earnestly for this approval, with the suggestion that it should
be given in a special writing; and he directed that it should
also be read. everywhere in his Greek dominions, that there
might be no doubt of the validity of the Council of Chalcedon.
The Emperor says he is astonished that the Pope had not
sent these letters of approval: Quas videlicet in sanctissinvis
ecclestis perlectas im omniwm oportebat notitiam venire. This
omission, he goes on, nonnullorum animis ambiguitatem multam
anyecit, utrum tua Beatitudo, que in sancta synodo decreta sunt,
confirmaverat. Et ob cam rem tua pietas literas mittere digna-
bitur, per quas omnibus ecclesiis et populis manifestum fiat, in
sancta synodo peracta a tua Beatitudine rata haberi?
(b.) These texts, explicit as they are, authorize us in believ-
ing, not quite without doubt, but nevertheless with a certain
degree of probability, that the principles which guided the |
fourth Council were not strange to the first ; and this pro-
bability is greatly increased by the fact that a Synod com-
posed of more than forty bishops, assembled from all parts of
Italy, very explicitly and confidently declared, and that in
opposition to the Greeks, that the 318 bishops at Nicea con-
jirmationem rerum, atgue auctoritatem sancte Romane ecclesice
detulerunt.*
(c.) Socrates tells us that Pope Julius asserted:® Canon
1 Opera S. Leon. M. (edit. Baller.), 1, 1263; οὗ, p. 1126, and <did.: ποῖ, 8,
p. 1134,
2 Ibid. p. 1100.
2 Ibid, p. 1182 sq. Of. p. 1118.and 1120, : )
¢ Mansi, vii. 1140; Hard. ii. 856. 8 Hist, Eccl. ii. 1,
NICZA: SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS, 447
eeclesiasticus vetat, ne decreta absque sententia episcopt Romant
ecclestis sanciantur, Pope Julius then clearly declared not
only that cecumenical councils ought to be approved by the
Bishop of Rome, but also that a rule of ecclesiastical dis-
cipline (canon ecclesiasticus) demanded this. We must not
regard these words as an allusion to this or that particular
canon. But as Pope Julius filled the Holy See only eleven
years after the Council of Nicsa, we are forced to believe
that such a rule must have existed at the time of the Nicene
Synod.
(d.) The Collectio Dionysit exigui proves that, about the year
500, it was the general persuasion at Rome that the acts
of the Council of Niczea had been approved by the Pope.
Dionysius in fact added to the collection of the Nicene acts:
Lt placuit, ut hee omnia mitierentur ad episcopum Lome Sil-
vestrum.' It is this general persuasion which probably made
people think of fabricating the false documents of which we
have spoken, and gave the forger the hope of passing his wares
as genuine,
1 Coustant, Hpistole Pontificum, pref. pp. 1xxxii. and Ixxix.; and App. pp.
51, 52. Οἱ, Hard. i, 811; Richer, who opposes Dionysius, Hist. Concil. i.
34.
es
τὰ τὴν
Γ ἡ ΓΑ
i.
APPENDIX.
ee oe
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS,
BOUT the year 500 «.D., Dionysius the Less, who was an
A abbot in a monastery at Rome, translated a collection of
canons from Greek into Latin, for Bishop Stephen of Salona,
at the head of which he placed fifty canons, which, according
to him, proceeded from the apostles, and had been arranged
‘and collected by their disciple Clement of Rome. Dionysius
placed after them the canons of Nicza, of Ancyra, of Constan-
‘tinople, of Chalcedon, etc. We are still in possession not
only of this collection, but even of its Prafatio, which was
addressed to Bishop Stephen: it is to be found in every good
collection of the Councils! +The words of ‘this preface,
Canones, qui dicuntur apostolorum, show that Dionysius had
some doubt as to the apostolic origin of these canons, which
is made more evident when he adds: quibus plurimé consensum
non prebuere facilem. Dy. von Drey, who is the author of
the best work upon these apostolic canons, and also upon
the Apostolic Constitutions, thinks? that by plurimi we must
here understand only the Greeks, for the translation by
Dionysius is the first Latin translation of these canons. This
last statement is true; but we must not conclude from it that
the Greek text of these canons was not known in the West,
and especially in Italy, where at this period so many spoke
Greek. We must not conclude, however, that this sentence
of Dionysius, Quamvis postea quedam constituta pontificum
ex wpsis canonibus assumpta esse videantur, referred to the
Popes: the word pontificcs rather signifies the bishops, and
1 Hard. Collect. Concil. i. 1; Mansi, Collect. Concil. i. 2.
78, 208,
2F
450 APPENDIX,
especially the Greek bishops, who made use of the so-called
apostolic canons in their Synod, in the arrangement of their
own canons.
About fifty years after Dionysius the Less, Joannes Scho-
lasticus of Antioch, who was made Patriarch of Constantinople
in 565, published a Greek collection- of canons, σύνταγμα.
κανόνων, Which also contained the apostolic canons ; but instead
of numbering fifty, they here “amounted to eighty-five. This
collection is still in existence, and was printed in the second
volume in folio of the Bibliotheca juris canonici, by Voellus
and Justellus (Paris 1661). The arrangement of the apostolic
canons is here also attributed to Clement of Rome, and
Joannes Scholasticus implies that the most ancient Greek col-
lections of canons also contain the eighty-five apostolic canons.’
It is undeniable that the Greek copy which Dionysius had
before him belonged to a different family of collections of
Councils from that used by Joannes Scholasticus, for they
differ frequently, if not essentially, both in text and in the
way of numbering the canons; and hence it is explained how
Dionysius the Less knew only of fifty apostolic canons. It
is supposed that at first there were indeed only fifty in cir-
culation, and that the thirty-five others were added subse-
quently. However that may be, it is quite certain that, if
Dionysius the Less did omit these thirty-five canons, it was
not out of consideration for Rome, as was suggested by De
Marca; for none of these canons was so much calculated to
shock the Roman Church as was the forty-sixth of the first
series, which, in contradiction of the Roman practice, declared
all baptism by heretics to be invalid.’
When Joannes Scholasticus became Patriarch of Constan-
‘tinople, he brought his collection, and consequently also the
eighty-five apostolic canons contained in it, into ecclesiastical
use; and in 792, in its second canon, the Trullan Synod de-
clared not only that the eighty-five apostolic canons had the
force of laws, but besides this, that they must be considered
as of apostolic origin, whilst they rejected the Avostolic Con-
stitutions. It is quite true, it says, that the apostolic canons®
1 Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, Giessen 1848, 8. 76.
2Vgl. Drey, l.c. 207 ; Bickell, 1,0. 85. 8.0, 85.
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 451
recommend the observance of the Constitutions; but as the
latter were soon falsified, the Synod could not accept them.
It did not, however, doubt their apostolic origin?
The Synod ὧν Zrullo being, as is well known, regarded as
ecumenical by the Greek Church, the authenticity of the
eighty-five canons was decided in the East for all future time.
It was otherwise in the West. At the same period that
Dionysius the Less translated the collection in question for
Bishop Stephen, Pope Gelasius promulgated his celebrated
decree, de libris non rectpiendis, Drey mentions it,? but in a
way which requires correction. Following in this the usual
opinion, he says that the Synod at Rome in which Gelasius
published this decree was held in 494; but we shall see here-
after ὃ that this Synod was held in 496. Also Drey considers
himself obliged to adopt another erroneous opinion, according
to which Gelasius declared in the same decree the apostolic
canons to be apocryphal. This opinion is to be maintained
only so long as the usual text of this decree is consulted, as
the original text as it is given in the ancient manuscripts
does not contain the passage which mentions the apostolic
canons. This passage was certainly added subsequently,
with many others, probably by Pope Hormisdas (514—543),
when he made a new edition of the decree of Gelasius. As
Dionysius the Less published his collection in all probability
subsequently to the publication of the decree of Gelasius, pro-
perly so called, in 496, we can understand why this decree
did not mention the apostolical canons. Dionysius the Less
did not go to Rome while Gelasius was living, and did not
know him personally, as he himself says plainly in the Prefatio
of his collection of the papal decrees.” It is hence also plain
how it was that in another collection of canons subsequently
made by Dionysius, of which the preface still remains to us,
he does not insert the apostolic canons, but has simply this
remark: ° Quos non admisit universalitas, ego quoque in hoc
1 Cf. Hard. iii. 1659. 2S. 214.
* [Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Bd. ii.]
* Cf. Ballerini, edit. Opp. S. Leonis MM. vol. iii. p. elviii. n. iii. ; and Mansi,
viii. 170.
> Hard. i. 4 Cf. Bickell, 8. 75.
452 SrOri APPENDIX.
‘opere pretermist. Dionysius the Less, in fact, compiled this
new collection at a time when Pope Hormisdas had already
explicitly declared the apostolic canons to be apocryphal.!
‘Notwithstanding this, these canons, and particularly the fifty
mentioned by Dionysius the Less, did not entirely fall into
discredit in the West; but rather they came to be received,
because the first collection of Dionysius was considered of
great authority. They also passed into other collections, and
particularly into that of the pseudo-Isidore; and in 1054,
‘Humbert, legate of Pope Leo.Ix., made the following declara-
tion: Clementis liber, id est itinerarium Petri apostoli et canones
apostolorum numerantur inter apocrypha, EXCEPTIS CAPITULIS
QUINQUAGINTA, gue decreverunt regulis orthodoxis adjungenda.
Gratian also, in his decree, borrowed from the fifty apostolic
canons, and they gradually obtained the force of laws. But
many writers, especially Hincmar of Rheims, like Dionysius
the Less, raised doubts upon the apostolical origin of these
canons. From the sixteenth century the opinion has been uni-
versal that these documents are not authentic ; with the excep-
tion, however, of the French Jesuit Turrianus, who endeavoured
to defend their genuineness, as well as the authenticity of the
pseudo-Isidorian decrees. According to the Centuriators of
Magdeburg, it was especially Gabriel d’Aubespine Bishop of
Orleans, the celebrated Archbishop Peter de Marca, and the
Anglican Beveridge, who proved that they were not really
compiled by the apostles, but were made partly in the second
and chiefly in the third century. Beveridge considered this
collection to be a repertory of ancient canons given by Synods
in the second and third centuries. In opposition to them, the
Calvinist Dalleus (Daillé) regarded it as the work of a forger
who lived in the fifth and sixth centuries; but Beveridge
refuted him so convincingly, that from that time his opinion,
with some few modifications, has been that of all the learned.
Beveridge begins with the principle, that the Church in the
very earliest times must have had a collection of canons; and
he demonstrates that from the commencement of the fourth
century, bishops, synods, and other authorities often quote, as
documents in common use, the κανὼν ἀποστολικὸς, OF ἐκκλη-
1 Bickell, Le. '
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANOXS, 453°.
σιαστικὸς, or ἀρχαῖος ; as was done, for instance, at the Council
of Nica, by Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, and by the
Emperor Constantine, etc.’ According to Beveridge, these’
quotations make allusion to the apostolic canons, and prove
that they were already in use before the fourth century.
Dr. v. Drey’s work, undertaken with equal learning and
critical acuteness, has produced new results.?, He has proved,
1st, that in the primitive Church there was no special codex
canonum in use; 2d, that the expression κανὼν ἀποστολικὸς
does not at all prove the existence of our apostolic canons, but
rather refers to such commands of the apostles as are to be
found in Holy Scripture (for instance, to what they say about
the rights and duties of bishops), or else it simply signifies
this: “ Upon this point there is a rule and a practice which
can be traced back to apostolic times;”. but not exactly a
written law2 Asa summary of Drey’s conclusions, the fol-
lowing points may be noted :—Several of the pretended apos-
tolic canons are in reality very ancient, and may be assigned:
to apostolic times; but they have. been arranged at a much
more recent period, and there are only a few which, having
been borrowed from the Apostolic. Constitutions, are really
more ancient than the Council of Nica. Most of them were
composed in the fourth or even in the fifth century, and are
hardly more than repetitions and variations of the decrees.
of the Synods of that period, particularly of the Synod of
Antioch in 341. Some few* are even more recent than
the fourth Gicumenical Council held at Chalcedon, from the
canons of which they have been derived. Two collections of
the apostolic canons have been made: the first after the
middle of the fifth century ; the second, containing thirty-five.
more than the other, at the commencement of the sixth cen-
tury. rom these conclusions Drey draws up the following:
table :°—
1 Cf. Bickell, Geschich. des Kirchenrechts, 8, 82, where all the quotations from
ancient authors are collected.
* Neue Untersuchungen iiber die Constitutionen u. Canones der Apostel,.
Tiibing. 1832,
3 Cf. Drey, Jc. 5. 379 ff. ; Bickell, lc. S. 81 and Κα, &
*C. 30, 81, 83,
δ 5. 403 ff.
454 a APPENDIX, |
The apostolic canons are taken— : :
Ἢ 0. 1, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, 27, $4, 46, 47,49, 51, 62,
53, 60,64, and 65, from the six first ‘books of the Apostolic
Constitutions, which originated'in the East, and particularly '
in Syria, in the second half of the third century.
2. C. 79, from the eighth book of ‘the Ayostolic Constit-
tions, considerably more. recent than the six first, but’ which,
together with the seventh, was united. to. the six first books:
before 325. :
3. C. 21-24 and 80, from the Council of Niccea.
4, Ὁ, 9-16 inclusive, c. 29, 32-41 inclusive, and 76, from
the Council of Antioch held in 341.
5. ©. 45, 64, 70, and 71, from the Synod of Laodicea.
6. 6. 75, from the sixth canon of the Council of Constan-
tinople, held i in 381.
7. C. 28, from the Synod of Constantinople, held in 394.
8. C. 30, 67, 7 4, 81, 83, from the fourth Gcumenical
Council.
9. Ὁ. 19 is an imitation of the second canon of Neocvesarea.
10. C. 25 and 26 are from Basil the Great.
11. C. 69 and 70 from the pretended letter of S. Igna-
tius to the Philippians.
12. Rather less than a third of the apostolic canons are
of unknown origin. :
Bickell, in his History of Ecclesiastical Law, while he adopts
for the most part Drey’s conclusions, has shown that he brought
down the origin of our canons to ἃ period somewhat too’
recent. When, for instance, Drey supposes that the thirtieth’
apostolic canon is taken from: the second canon of the fourth
(icumenical Council held at Chalcedon, that the eighty-first
apostolic canon is'taken from the third canon, and the eighty-
third apostolic canon from the ‘seventh canon of the same
Council, Bickell remarks that the three canons of Chalcedon, '
of which we are speaking, certainly bear some analogy to
the apostolic canons; but this analogy, he says, is far from ,
being striking, and certainly does not prove that the composer
of these canons extracted them from those of the Council.’
Besides, it must not be forgotten, that in giving directions as
to what is to be done when a bishop is formally disobedient
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 455
(that he should be cited three times), the Council of Chalcedon,
nay, even that of Ephesus (431) and that of Constantinople
(448), quote canons which they call ecclesiastical and divine.*
Now. these canons are ‘nothing else but ‘the seventy-fourth
apostolic canon, ‘which alone gives directions.as to what is. to
be done in such: a case, Bickell further quotes. ἃ passage.
from the acts ofthe seventh session\of the Synod of Ephesus
held in 431, in which Rheginus Archbishop: of Cyprus,in a
memorandum of which we have now-only the Latin transla-
tion, appeals to the canones apostolict, and to the definitiones
Nicene Synodi, to‘ prove his Church to be independent of that
of Antioch. If,as we doubt not, Rheginus intends here to
speak .of the apostolic canons, and especially of the thirty-
sixth (according ‘to Dionysius), it is evident that these canons
were then in use.’ This may be further proved from, the
Synod of Constantinople held in 8394, which, in the words
καθὼς οἱ ἀποστολικοὶ κανόνες δυριρίσονπο; seems to allude to the
apostolic ‘canons. .
-Itis true that Drey anil dacvoisis to explain κανόνες ἀποσ-
τολικοὶ in the sense pointed out above; but, it is probable
that we must here think of canons δ μοι written,
and not only of an ancient. ecclesiastical practice. In fact, (a)
there is: no ancient ecclesiastical custom which ordains that
a disobedient bishop should be summoned three times. (@) At
such a recent period, when there were already collections of
canons, it was more natural. to quote these canons than a
simple ecclesiastical. tradition... (y) The definitiones Nicene
Synodi and the canones apostolict would not have been placed:
on an equal footing if these canones had not been positively
reduced to form, (6) Since these ancient Synods themselves
quoted canons which they called apostolic, and which, as we
have seen, were then in use, it must be concluded that it was.
not the apostolic canons which were. framed according to the,
canons of these Councils, but that the reverse was the. case,
Drey, as we have already remarked, supposes. that. a great.
number of the apostolic canons were taken from those of
1In Mansi, iv. 1136 54... 1228, vi. 712, 1038 sqq., 1095; Hard. i. 1360 sq.,
1433, ii. 148, 340, 877.) ° Ὁ
3 Mansi, iv. 1485; Hard i. 1617. 8 Maid, i iii. 853; Hard. i. 957.
456> J. 39") A ppREN DIX,
the Council of Antioch held in 341, and Bickell agrees with
him on this point." It cannot be denied that Drey’s' opinion
has much to be said for it: it does not, however, appear to
us quite unassailable; and perhaps it may still be possible
to prove that the canons of this Council of Antioch were
rather taken from the apostolic canons, It’ “may also be the
same with the Synod of: Nicza, which, in ‘its first, second,
fifth, and fifteenth canons, alludes to ancient canons in use -
in the Church. Perhaps: the Council placed the. canons re-
ferredto among the apostolic canons which may have circu-’
lated in. the Church before being inserted in our present
collection... This: hypothesis is in a certain way confirmed
by α΄. document to which Galland? has drawn attention, but
which Drey and Bickell have overlooked. _We have mentioned -
in the present: volume, that in 1738 Scipio Maffei published”
three ancient: documents, the first of which was a Latin trans- :
lation of a letter written on the subject of Meletius by the
Egyptian bishops Hesychius, Phileas, etc. This letter was.
written during the persecution of Diocletian, that is, between
303 and 305: it is: addressed to Meletius himself, and
especially accuses him of having’ ordained priests in other’
dioceses. This conduct, they tell him, is contrary to all’
ecclesiastical rule (aliena a more divino et REGULA ECCLESIAS-
TICA), and Meletius himself knows: very well that it is a lex:
patrum et propatrum ... im alienis parecis non licere alicut
episcoporum ortinationes celcbrare® Maffei himself supposes:
that the Egyptian bishops were here referring to the? thirty-
fifth canon (the thirty-sixth according to the enumeration of:
Dionysius), and this opinion can hardly be controverted.
The Greek text of the apostolic canons exists in many:
an¢ient manuscripts, as well in those which contain the Ayos-’
tolie Constitutions (and then they are placed at the end in a
chapter by themselves *), as in the manuscripts of ancient col-
lectidns of canons. In the ancient collections they generally’
number engenaenes gies apo Di to the number found in the
τ ocgis we ᾿ ; , ἜΤ a
a Bickell, Ss. “9 f,
5. Biblioth. vet. PP. τῷ iis Prolog. p..x% °°
3 Routh, Reliquie sacre, i iii. 881, μονὴν
εἰ Ect» CCe Lab. viii, 1.87, etl? J hicch
TIIE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 45 7h.
copies employed by Dionysius the Less and Joannes Scho-
lasticus. On the other hand, when they are collected in the
manuscripts of the <Avpostolic Constitutions, they are divided
into seventy-six canons.” For it must not be forgotten that
in ancient times the number of canons, and the way in which
they were divided, varied greatly. κ
The fifty apostolic canons in the translation by ἐπννα
the Less appeared for the first time in the collection of the
Councils by Merlin, publishéd. in 11523, and they are found
in the more récent collections of Hardouin* and Mansi.®
The Greek text was edited for the first time by Gregory
Haloander in 1531. In 1561, Gentianus Hervetus pub-
lished a superior edition of them. These two latter authors!
divide the canons into: eighty-four, and Hervetus’ division’
has. been adopted by Hardouin,’ Mansi,’ and Bruns. In»
our edition we also have adopted the number of eighty-five,.
at the same time accepting for the fifty-first the division
established by Dionysius the Less. For the sake of per-
spicuity, we have besides placed the two methods of enu-
meration side by side: first that of Dionysius the Less, then
that of Hervetus, Hardouin, Mansi, and Bruns; so much the.
more, as all our quotations up to this time have been made
according to the second enumeration. We shall also borrow
their Greek text from those authors, which here and there
differs from the.text. placed at the end of the Constitutions.
The Latin translation of the first fifty canons is by Dionysius
the Less; that of the last thirty-five is by Cotelerius.
‘ 1 We must mention, however, that Scholasticus gives No. 51 twice over : but
the first No. 51 is an entirely unknown canon. Cf. Biblioth. jur. can. of Voellus
et Justellus, vol. ii. p. 569, tit. xxxvi.
-2Cf. the edit. Patrum Apostolic. Opp. i. 442 sqq., by Cotelerius. Ueltzen
replaces the number of 85 in his new edition of the Apostolic Constitutions,
1853, p. 2388 566.
- 3 See above, p. 67. 4 Hard. i. 33 sqq. 5 Mansi, i. 49 sqq.
, § Vol. 1. p. 9 sqq. _ * Vol. i. p. 29 sqq. A
8 Bibl. Ecclesiast. i. 1 sqq. Cf. Bickell, l.c. S. 72 f.
9. See this text in the-edd. of the Constit. Apostol. by Cotelcrius and Ueltzen.
458. j : ‘APPENDIX,
οι KANONES:
TON ATION KAI TIANSEITON ATIOZTOAQN.
Regule coclesiastice sanetorwm apostolorum sollte per Clementens
| Eeclesice ieaae κάρᾳ sw |
Cacia
*EricKotros χειροτονείσθω ὑ ὑπὸ ἐπισκόπων δύο 4 ἢ τριῶν.
Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordinetur.
According to Drey,’ this canon is among those whose apos-
tolic origin cannot indeed be proved, but which dates back
to a very remote antiquity, that is, to the first three centuries
of the Christian era. Its sources are certainly the Apostolic.
Constitutions.
i Can. 2.
IT ρεσβύτερος ὑφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐπισκόπου χειροτονείσθω, καὶ διάκονος
καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κληρικοί.
Presbyter ab uno: veg ordinetur, et diaconus et reliqui
clerici.
The same remarks are applicable as to the first canon...
Can, 3
Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος παρὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου διά-
τάξιν, τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ, προσενέγκῃ ἕτερά τινα ἐπὶ τὸ θυσια-
στήριον, ἢ μέλι ἢ γάλα ἢ ἀντὶ οἴνου σίκερα ἢ ἐπιτηδευτὰ ἢ ὄρνεις
ἢ ζῶά τινα ἢ. ὄσπρια, ὡς παρὰ τὴν διάταξιν. Κυρίου, ποιῶν,
καθαιρείσθω, πλὴν νέων. χίδρων ἢ ἀρ φήνη τῷ καιρῷ τῷ
δέοντι.
Si quis episcopus et presbyter preter ordinationem Domini
alia queedam in sacrificio offerat super altare, id est aut mel,
aut lac, aut pro vino siceram, aut confecta queedam, aut vola-
tilia, aut animalia aliqua, aut legumina, contra’ ‘constitutionem
Domini faciens, congruo tempore, deponatur. ο΄.
The Latin text “μή Dionysius the Less, and the Greek text
as itis to be found in the collections of the Councils, here
present variaticns on several points. Thus, (a) the Greek text
1,6, 8. 264-271, 3.11, 20, viii. 4, 27.
TIIE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 459
unites into one single canon what Dionysius divides into Nos. 3
and 4; so that in the collections of the Councils the numbers
of the Greek text no longer coincide with those of the trans-
lation by Dionysius, . We have preserved the enumeration of
Dionysius, and have accordingly divided the Greek canon into
two. (Ὁ) We have not, however, thus produced complete
harmony between the two texts; for, according to the Greek
text, the words preter novas spicas et uvas belong to the third
canon, whilst according to Dionysius they Sane part of the
fourth. These words are evidently a translation of the Greek
phrase, πλὴν νέων χίδρων 7 σταφυλῆς. (c) Bearing in mind
these transpositions, the words congruo tempore in ‘thie third
canon may be explained as follows: “ Except fresh ears of
corn and grapes when it is the right time for them.” (ὦ) If
the words preter novas spicas et uvas are not placed in the third
canon, but in the fourth, we must also place the words congruo
tempore in the fourth, and then the meaning is the same as
before. As to the antiquity of canons 3-5, we will make the
following remarks :—All three speak of what ought or ought
ποῦ to be offered upon the altar. The substance af these
rules is ancient: one might even perhaps say that it is partly
ordained by our Lord Himself; and it is to this that the first
words of the third canon refer. The details contained in this
same third canon seem to have been inserted in order to combat
the customs of the ancient heretics. The fourth and fifth
canons are hardly more than explanations and commentaries
on Ene third, and thus betray a more recent origin.*
Can.-4 (3).
ev δὲ Φοψω: προσάγεσθαι τι ἕτερον εἰς τὸ θυσιαστήριον,
n Pri εἰς τὴν ΕΝ καὶ θυμίαμα τῷ spe τῆς ἁγίας
προσφορᾶς. :
Offerri. non ἜΡΩΣ aliquid ad altare ἐν novas -spicas et
uvas, et oleam ad luminaria, et thymiama id est incensum,
tempore quo sancta celebratur oblatio.
‘Can. 5 (4).
“‘H ἄλλη πᾶσα ὀπώρα εἰς οἶκον ἀποστελλέσθω, ἀπαρχὴ τῷ
τόρ τί καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, ἀλλὰ μὴ τῷ se τὸ θυσιαστήριον'
1 Vgl. Drey, lie. S. 365 fi. :
460. rch _ ° APPENDIX.
δῆλον δὲ, ὡς ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Kal of πρεσβύτεροι ἐπιμερίξουσι τοῖς
διακόνοις καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς κληρικοῖς. :
Reliqua poma omnia ad domum, primitice episcopo et pres-
byteris, dirigantur, nec offerantur in altari. .Certum est autem,
quod episcopus et presbyteri dividant et diaconis et ay
clericis.
- For these two, see the remarks on the third canon.
Can. 6 (5).
Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα
μὴ ἐκβαλλέτω προφάσει εὐλαβείας" ἐὰν δὲ xP OND, ἀφοριζέσθω:
ἐπιμένων δὲ, καθαιρείσθω.
Episcopus aut presbyter uxorem propriam sub obtentu reli-
cionis nequaquam abjiciat; si vero ejecerit, excommunicetur ;
et si perseveraverit, dejiciatur.
Drey* supposes that Eustathius of Sebaste gave occasion.
for this canon towards the middle of the fourth century.
Compare canons 1 and 4 of the Synod of Gangra. According
to the Greek text, it would be necessary to place the words
et diaconus after the word presbyter in the Latin translation.
Can. 7 (6).
Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος κοσμικὰς φροντίδας
μὴ ἀναλαμβανέτω" εἰ δὲ μὴ, καθαιρείσθω.
Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus nequaquam seculares
curas assumat; sin aliter, dejiciatur.
This belongs to the most ancient canons, which contain
rules perhaps proceeding from the apostles and their disciples ;
but it must have been arranged more recently (in the third
century). The Apostolic Constitutions? contain a similar rule?
Cay. '8 (7).
Ei τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος. ἢ διάκονος τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ
Πάσχα ἡμέραν πρὸ τῆς ἐαρινῆς ἰσημερίας μετὰ *Lovdaiwy
ἐπιτελέσει, καθαιρείσθω.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus sanctum
Pasche diem ante vernale zquinoctium cum J udieis celebra-
verit, abjiciatur.
We have seen in the present will that a fresh difficulty :
1 Constit. Apost. S. 341. .. —. 2 ii. 6. 3 Drey, S. 240-248 and 463.
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 461
arose during the third century, added to those already existing,
for determining the time for celebrating the Easter festival.
After having discussed whether it ought to be fixed according
to the day of the week or the day of the month, and after
having inquired at what time the fast should end, it was
‘besides questioned, during the third century, whether Easter
ought always to be celebrated after the vernal equinox. The
Council of Nicza answered this question in the affirmative—
if not expressly, at least implicitly. The Synod of Antioch,
held in 341, gave a similar decision, and Bickell considers
that? this canon was taken from the first canon of Antioch.
Drey,® on the contrary, believes that the canon of Antioch
was derived from the Apostolic Constitutions.
Can. 9 (8). ᾿
Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ἐκ τοῦ κατα-
λόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ προσφορᾶς γενομένης μὴ μεταλάβοι, τὴν
αἰτίαν εἰπάτω" καὶ ἐὰν εὔλογος ἢ, συγγνώμης τυγχανέτω" εἰ δὲ
μὴ λέγει, ἀφοριζέσθω, ὡς αἴτιος βλάβης γενόμενος τῷ λαῷ καὶ
ὑπόνοιαν ποιήσας κατὰ τοῦ προσενέγκαντος.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus vel quilibet
ex sacerdotali catalogo facta oblatione non communicaverit,
aut causam dicat, ut si rationabilis fuerit, veniam consequatur,
aut si non dixerit, communione privetur, tanquam qui populo
causa lesionis extiterit, dans suspicionem de eo, qui sacrifi-
cavit, quod recte non obtulerit.
The Latin text of Dionysius the Less seems to imply that
these words ought to have been added at the end of the
Greek text, ὡς μὴ ὑγιῶς ἀνενεγκόντος (as if he had not recu-
larly offered) ; and these words are to be found in some Greek
manuscripts. As to the antiquity of this canon, see the note
on the one following. )
δι Can. 10 (9).
Πάντας τοὺς εἰσιόντας πιστοὺς καὶ τῶν γραφῶν ἀκούοντας,
“μὴ παραμένοντας δὲ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεταλήψει, ὡς
- ἀταξίαν ἐμποιοῦντας τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀφορίζεσθαι χρή.
Onmes fideles, qui ingrediuntur ecclesiam et scripturas
audiunt, non autem perseverant in oratione, nec sanctam com-
1 See above, ‘sec. 37. 2S. 331. 8S. 408. . 4 Constit. A post. v. 17.
462 APPENDIX,
munionem percipiunt, velut Inquietudines ecclesiz commo-
ventes, convenit communione privare.
This tenth canon is evidently connected with the ninth}
Drey believes that in substance they are both very ancient,
and arose from those times of persecution, during which some
Christians abstained from receiving the holy communion from
remorse of conscience. Drey is evidently in the wrong when
he maintains that this tenth apostolic canon was copied word
for word from the second canon of the Council of Antioch
held in 341. ‘The reverse of this is more probable. See our
introductory remarks on these canons.
Can. 11. (10).
Et τις ἀκοινωνήτῳ κἂν ἐν οἴκῳ συνεύξηται, οὗτος ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis cum excommunicato, etiam domi, simul oraverit, et
ipse communione privetur.
This canon must be considered, as to its contents, as among
the most ancient of the apostolic canons, which stretch back
to apostolic times. As to its present form, Drey? supposes
that it was taken from the second canon of the Council of
Antioch; but see what is said at the end of the note on the
preceding canon. |
Can. 12 (11).
Ei τις καθηρημένῳ κληρικὸς ὧν ὡς ia συνεύξηται,
καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτός.
Si quis cum damnato clerico, veluti cum clerico, simul
oraverit, et ipse damnetur.
On the antiquity of this canon the same observations may
be offered as those upon the tenth and eleventh. According
to Drey, this canon must have been formed from the second
canon of the Council of Antioch,
Can. 13 (12).
Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ἢ λαικὸς ἀφωρισμένος ἤτοι ἄδεκτος, ἀπελθὼν
ἐν ἑτέρᾳ πόλει, δεχθῇ ἄνευ γραμμάτων συστατικῶν, ἀφοριζέσθω
καὶ ὁ δεξάμενος καὶ ὁ δεχθείς" εἰ δὲ ἀφωρισμένος εἴη, ἐπιτεινέσθω
αὐτῷ ὁ ἀφορισμὸς, ws ψευσαμένῳ καὶ ἀπατήσαντι τὴν ᾿Εκκλη-
σίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Si quis clericus aut laicus a communione suspensus vel
2 5, 255 f. and 405, , lc. S. 405, 8,6. 5, 405,
ΤΗΣ SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 463
communicans, ad aliam properet. civitatem, et suscipiatur
preter commendaticias literas, et qui susceperunt et qui sus-
ceptus est, communione priventur. Excommunicato vero pro-
teletur ipsa correptio, tanquam qui mentitus sit et Ecclesiam
Dei seduxerit. ai,
- The Greek text has ἤτοι ἄδεκτος, that is, sive excommuni-
catus. It is supposed that we should rather read ἤτοι δεκτὸς,
because in the latter part of the canon two sorts of penalties
are appointed: (a) When one who is not excommunicated is
᾿ elsewhere received, without having letters of recommendation
from his bishop, he is to be excommunicated, and also he who
received them ; (8) If one who is excommunicated succeeds in
being received elsewhere, the period of his excommunication
shall be prolonged. ‘The contents of this canon are certainly
ante-Nicene. Drey* supposes the form to be derived from
the sixth canon of the Council of Antioch. See the note on
the tenth canon.
Can. 14 (18).
᾿Επίσκοπον μὴ ἐξεῖναι καταλείψεαντα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παροικίαν
ἑτέρᾳ ἐπιπηδᾷν, κἂν ὑπὸ πλειόνων ἀναγκάζηται, εἰ μή τις
εὔλογος αἰτία ἢ τοῦτο βιαζομένη αὐτὸν ποιεῖν, ὡς πλέον τι
κέρδος δυναμένου αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἐκεῖσε λόγῳ εὐσεβείας συμβάλ-
AeoOau καὶ τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ad’ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλὰ κρίσει πολλῶν ἐπι-
σκόπων καὶ παρακλήσει μεγίστῃ.
Episcopo non licere alienam parochiam, propria relicta, per-
vadere, licet cogatur a plurimis, nisi forte quia. eum rationabilis
causa compellat, tanquam qui possit ibidem constitutis plus
lucri conferre, et in causa religionis aliquid profectus prospi-
cere; et hoc non a semetipso pertentet, sed multorum episco-
porum judicio et maxima supplicatione perficiat.
The prohibition to leave one church for another is very
ancient. It had been before set forth by the Council of
Arles in 314, and by the Council of Nica in its fifteenth
canon, as well as by the Synod of Antioch in 341, and it was
renewed by that of Sardica.. This fifteenth canon is therefore,
as to its substance, very ancient; but its present form, Drey
supposes, is post-Nicene, as may be inferred, he thinks, from the
lightening of the penalty, which could not have been decreed
lie. S. 257 and 405.
464 d APPENDIX. eer
by the ancient canons. Drey therefore concludes that this
canon was framed after the eighteenth and twenty-first canons
of Antioch." But see the note on the tenth canon,
Can. 15 (14).
Ei τις πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τῶν
κληρικῶν ἀπολείψας τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παροικίαν εἰς ἑτέραν ἀπέλθῃ,
καὶ παντελῶς μεταστὰς διατρίβῃ ἐν ἄλλῃ παροικίᾳ παρὰ γνώμην
τοῦ ἰδίον ἐπισκόπου; τοῦτον κελεύομεν μηκέτι λειτουργεῖν,
μάλιστα εἰ προσκαλουμένου αὐτὸν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου αὐτοῦ ἐπά-
νελθεῖν οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν ἐπιμένων τῇ ἀταξίᾳ: ὡς λαϊκὸς μέντοι
€KELOE κοινωνξιτω.-
Si quis presbyter aut diaconus aut quilibet de numero
clericorum relinquens propriam parochiam pergat ad alienam,
et omnino demigrans preter episcopi sui conscientiam in
aliena parochia commoretur, hunc alterius ministrare non
patimur, preecipue si vocatus ab episcopo redire contempserit,
in sua inquietudine perseverans ; verum tamen tanquam laicus
ibi communicet. ,
The same remark is applicable as to the fourteenth canon.
According to Drey, this fifteenth, as well as the following
canon, must have been formed from the third canon of the
Council of Antioch, held in 341. See the note on the tenth
canon.
Can. 16 (15).
Ei δὲ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, παρ᾽ ᾧ τυγχάνουσι, παρ᾽ οὐδὲν λογισά-
μενος τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁρισθεῖσαν ἀργίαν, δέξεται αὐτοὺς ὡς
κληρικοὺς, ἀφοριζέσθω ὡς διδασκαλος ἀταξίας.
Episcopus vero, apud quem moratos esse constiterit, si
contra eos decretam cessationem pro nihilo reputans, tanquam
clericos forte susceperit, velut magister inquietudinis com-
munione privetur.
The same remark is applicable as to the fourteenth canon.
Can. 17 (16).
Ὃ δυσὶ γάμοις συμπλακεὶς μετὰ TO βάπτισμα ἢ παλλακὴν
κτησάμενος οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ ὅλως
τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ.
Si quis post baptisma secundis fuerit nuptiis copulatus aut
1 Drey, ὃ, 274 and 405.
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, ‘465
concubinam habuerit, non potest esse episcopus aut presbyter
aut diaconus, aut prorsus ex numero eorum, qui ministerio
sacro deserviunt.
It is certain that this canon in its substance is an apostolic
ordinance. The form, however, is taken from the <Avpostolic
Constitutions? consequently about the third century.’
Can. 18 (17).
Ὃ χήραν λαβὼν ἢ ἐκβεβλημένην ἢ ἑταίραν ἢ οἰκέτιν ἢ τῶν
ἐπὶ σκηνῆς οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος
ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ.
Si quis viduam aut ejectam acceperit, aut meretricem aut
ancillam, vel aliquam de his qui publicis spectaculis manci-
pantur, non potest esse episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus
aut ex eorum numero qui ministerio sacro deserviunt.
A similar remark applies to this as to the seventeenth
canon. See Lev. xxi. 14, where we have a similar ordinance
for the Jewish priests.
Can. 19 (18).
Ὃ δύο ἀδελφὰς ayayopevos ἢ ἀδελφιδῆν οὐ δύναται εἶναι
κληρικός.
Qui duas in conjugium sorores acceperit, vel filiam fratris,
clericus esse non poterit.
This canon, like the preceding, renews a command con:
tained in the Old Testament.? The Synods of Elvire*® and
of Neocssarea’ enforced it also. This nineteenth canon may
therefore be considered to be contemporary with those synods,
especially to be an imitation of the second canon of Neo-
ceesarea.®
Can. 20 (19).
Κληρικὸς ἐγγύας διδοὺς καθαιρείσθω.
Clericus fidejussionibus inserviens abjiciatur,
We have seen in sec. 4, that from the third century it was
decidedly forbidden that priests should be tutors or guardians ;
in a word, that they should meddle with the settlement of
11 Tim. iii. 2-13 ; Tit. i. 5-9; 1 Pet. v. 1-4.
2 Constit. Apost. vi. 17. 3 Drey, U.c. S. 242 and 403.
«ΟἹ, Drey, lc. S, 251 and 403. 5 See Lev. xviii. 16, xx. 21.
5 Can. 61, 7 Can. 2. 8 ὍΤΟΥ, dc. S. 251 and 409.
be
ῷ
466 APPENDIX.
worldly business. A similar prohibition is given in the: pre-
sent canon, which in the main is very ancient, and was taken
from the Apostolic Constitutions,
Can. 21 (20).
Εὐνοῦχος εἰ μὲν ἐξ ἐπηρείας ἀνθρώπων ἔγενετό τις, ἢ ἐν
διωγμῷ ἀφῃρέθη τὰ ἀνδρῶν, ἢ οὕτως ἔφυ, καί ἐστιν ἄξιος,
γινέσθω.
Eunuchus si per insidias hominum factus est, vel si in
persecutione ejus sunt amputata virilia, vel si ita natus est,
et est dignus, efficiatur episcopus.
The Cicumenical Synod of Nicza, in its first canon, gave
a similar command to that contained in this and the two fol-
lowing canons. In enforcing it, the Synod professed to be
conforming to ancient canons, by which it intended the
twenty-first, also the twenty-second and twenty-third apos-
tolic canons. Drey,? on the contrary, considers that this
apostolic canon was framed from those of Niczea; perhaps it
may have been the Valesians who gave occasion for these rules.’
Can. 22 (21).
Ὃ dxpwrnpidcas ἑαυτὸν μὴ γινέσθω κληρικός" αὐτοφονευτὴς
γάρ ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δημιουργίας ἐχθρός.
Si quis absciderit semetipsum, id est, si quis 5101 amputavit
virilia, non fiat clericus, quia suus homicida est, et Dei con-
ditionibus inimicus.
See the note on the preceding canon.
Can. 23 (22).
Ei τις κληρικὸς ὧν ἑαυτὸν ἀκρωτηριάσει, καθαιρείσθω,
φονευτὴς γάρ ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ.
Si quis, cum clericus fuerit, absciderit semetipsum, omnino
damnetur, quia suus est homicida.
The same remark as on the twenty-first canon,
Can. 24 (23).
Aaixos ἑαυτὸν ἀκρωτηριάσας ἀφοριζέσθω ἔτη τρία: ἐπίβουλος
γάρ ἐστι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ζωῆς.
1 Constit. Apost. ii. 6. Cf. Drey, Uc. S, 248 and 403. See also above, the
zevent apostolic canon.
7S, 266 f. and 410, 8. See above, secs. 4 and 42,
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 467
Laicus . semetipsum abscindens annis tribus communione
privetur, quia suze vite insidiator exstitit.
The first canon of Nicza, which is also on the subject of
voluntary mutilation, has reference only to the clergy, and
doves not appoint any penalty for the laity who ‘mutilate
themselves, This might incline us to the opinion that the
present canon was given to complete those of the Council of
Nica, and consequently that it is more recent than that
Council. But there is no doubt that the Council of Nicxa
had this canon before it, and spoke of self-mutilation only as
an impedimentum ordinis, Athanasius,in his Historia Arian-
erum ad monachos, shows that voluntary mutilation was also
severely punished in the laity, and that they were excluded
from communio laicalis, Drey” is of opinion that these canons
are more recent than those of Nica, and that they were
formed from the latter.
Can. 25 (24).
᾿Επίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ ἢ ἐπιορκίᾳ
ἢ κλοπῇ ἁλοὺς καθαιρείσθω, καὶ μὴ ἀφορίζεσθω" λέγει γὰρ ἡ
γραφή" Οὐκ ἐκδικήσεις δὶς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό ὁμοίως δὲ οἱ λοιποὶ
κληρικοὶ τῇ αὐτῇ αἱρέσει ὑποκείσθωσαν.
Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, qui in fornicatione
aut perjurio aut furto captus est, deponatur, non tamen com-
munione privetur; dicit enim Scriptura: Non vindicabit
Dominus bis in idipsum.
This canon alludes to a passage in the prophet Nahum?
It certainly belongs in the main to the most ancient canons ;
for S. Basil the Great says in his letter to Amphilochus (c. 3),
that, according to an ancient rule (ἀρχαῖον κανόνα), thieves,
etc., were to be deprived of their ecclesiastical offices, Leo
the Great, however, calls this an apostolic tradition,* Drey?
supposes that this sentence of 8. Basil’s gave rise to the
éanon.
Can, 26.
Similiter et reliqui clerici huie conditioni subjaceant.
In the Greek this canon is not separately counted; it
3. Ὁ. 28, Opp. vol. i. P. i. p. 884, ed. Patav. 3.0. 8, 268 and 410,
%Nahumi.9, 4 Ep. 92 (according to Ballerini, Zp. 167), ad Rustic. n. &
Sic. S. 244 and 412,
463: ‘22 “LS APPENDIX.
forms only the last sentence of the one preceding. As for
its antiquity, see the remarks on the twenty-fifth canon.
Can. 27 (25).
Τῶν εἰς κλῆρον προσελθόντων ἀγάμων κελεύομεν βουλομένους.
γαμεῖν ἀναγνώστας καὶ ψάλτας μόνους,
Innuptis autem, qui ad clerum provecti sunt, precipimus,
ut si voluerint uxores accipiant, sed lectores cantoresque
tantummodo.
Paphnutius had declared in the Council of Nicea’ in
favour of an ancient law, which decided that, whoever had
taken holy orders when unmarried, could not be married
afterwards. The Synod of Ancyra, held in 314, also recog-
nised this law, and tor that reason, in its tenth canon, estab-
lished an exception mm favour of deacons. The Council of
Elvira went still further These approaches prove that the
present canon is more ancient than the Council of Nicza,
and that it is a faithful interpreter of the ancient practice of
the Church. Even Drey’ says that this canon is taken from
the Apostolic Constitutions (vi. 17), and. consequently is ante-
Nicene. .
Can. 28 (26).
Ἐπίσκοπον ἢ πρεσβύτερον ἢ διάκονον τύπτοντα πιστοὺς
ἁμαρτάνοντας ἢ ἀπίστους ἀδικήσαντας, τὸν διὰ τοιούτων φοβεῖν
θέλοντα, καθαιρεῖσθαι προστάττομεν᾽. οὐδαμοῦ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος
τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξε: τοὐναντίον δὲ αὐτὸς τυπτόμενος οὐκ ἀντέ-
τυπτε, λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει, πάσχων οὐκ ἠπείλει.
Episcopum aut. presbyterum aut diaconum percutientem
fideles delinquentes, aut infideles inique agentes, et per hujus-
modi volentem timeri, dejici ab officio suo preecipimus, quia
nusquam nos hoc Dominus docuit; e contrario vero ipse, cum
percuteretur non repercutiebat, cum malediceretur non remale-
dicebat, cum pateretur non comminabatur.
Drey believes this canon to be one of the most recent of
the apostolic canons,’ for no ancient synod ever thought it
necessary to put forth such decisions. The Synod of Con-
stantinople, held a.p. 394, was the first to forbid the clergy te
1 See sec. 43. i 2.1.6, 5. 307 ff. and 403.
3 §. 345 and 410. ;
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, ‘469
‘strike the faithful, and this apostolic canon is one an imita-
tion of that.
Can. 29 (27).
Ei rus ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος καθαιρεθεὶς δικαίως
“ἐπὶ ἐγκλήμασι φανεροῖς τολμήσειεν ἅψασθαι τῆς ποτε ἐγχειρισ-
θείσης αὐτῷ λειτουργίας, οὗτος παντάπασιν ἐκκοπτέσθω τῆς
᾿Εκκλησίας.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, depositus
juste super certis criminibus, .ausus fuerit attrectare mini-
sterium dudum sibi commissum, hic ab Ecclesia rene ab-
scindatur. ;
. “This canon is similar -to the ἐαάνδῳ οὗ νὰ Council of
Antioch, held in 341. Drey believes’ this apostolic canon
to be more recent than that of Antioch, and intended to cor-
‘rect it; for the latter refers‘only to the case'of a bishop who
is regularly deposed, and that for acknowledged sins. © But it
“may be, on the contrary, that our canon is: more ancient than
that of Antioch. The Fathers of Antioch perhaps only
applied to 8. Athanasius the orders of a rule before known.
See the comments upon the tenth canon.
Can. 30 (28).
Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος διὰ χρημάτων τῆς ἀξίας ταύτης ἐγκρατὴς
γένηται, ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ
0 χειροτονήσας, καὶ ἐκκοπτέσθω τῆς κοινωνίας παντάπασιν, ὡς
“Σίμων ὁ μάγος ἀπὸ ἐμοῦ Πέτρου.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus per pecunias
hance obtinuerit dignitatem, dejiciatur οὐ 1086 et ordinator ejus,
‘et a communione omnibus modis abscindatur, sicut Simon
magus a Petro.
We have seen in the comments upon the canons of the
Synod of Elvira, that this Council in its forty-eighth canon
forbade all fees for the administration of baptism as simoniacal.
.The Council, however, did not use the word simony; but at the
time when the thirtieth apostolic canon was formed, the word
-simony seems to have been used as a technical term, ‘This
observation would go to prove that this apostolic canon has
a later origin: it is hardly probable, indeed, ‘ane in n times of
1§. 298 and 405. j ith F
470 SHOUD OL CEPR RNDIE, 62 TRF
persecution it should have been attempted. to buy bishoprics
for money. But the Synod of Sardica shows from its second
canon that it was then aware of such cases. Abuses of the
same kind also drew S. Basil's attention’. του ἢ thinks that
this thirtieth apostolic canon is only:an.extract from the second
canon of the Council of Chalcedon. See the remarks above.
7 > Can, 31 (29);
Et vie ἐπίσκοπος κοσμικοῖς ἄρχουσι χρησάμενος 87 αὐτῶν
ἐγκρατὴς γένηται. ἐκκλησίας, “καθαιρείσθω καὶ mpaurseebt καὶ
οἱ κοινωνοῦντες αὐτῷ πάντες. ’
Si quis episcopus secularibus ‘poteéstabibus usus ἘΠ ΒΝ
per ipsos obtineat, deponatur, et segregentur omnes, qui ill
communicant. ὁ
The object of this canon is to oppose the intervention of
Christian Emperors in the choice of bishops: it is not pro-
bable that it was decreed ‘by an ancient council; rather it
must have been composed’ by whoever collected the apostolic
constitutions and canons. Drey® stronely doubts whether
any ancient council would have dared to offer such explicit
and declared opposition to the Emperors.
ore 32 (30). |
Εἴ τις πρεσβύτερος καταφρονήσας τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου. χωρὶς
συναγωγὴν. καὶ θυσιαστήριον πήξει, μηδὲν κατεγνωκὼς. τοῦ ἐπυ-
σκόπου ἐν εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ, καθαιρείσθω ὡς φίλαρχος"
τύραννος Yap ἐστιν ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κληρικοὶ καὶ ὅσοι
ἐν αὐτῷ προσθῶνται" οἱ δὲ λαϊκοὶ ἀφοριξέσθωσαν" ταῦτα δὲ
μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην παράκλησιν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου
γινέσθω. |
Si quis presbyter contemnens episcopum suum seorsum
collegerit et altare aliud erexerit, nihil habens quo reprehendat
episcopum in causa pietatis et justitize, deponatur, quasi prin-
cipatus amator existens, est enim tyrannus ; et czeteri clerici,
quicumque tali consentiunt, deponantur, laici vero. segregentur.
‘Heec autem post unam et secundam et. τα τανε, οὐκ σον χὰ ob-
eateries fieri conveniat.
» It happened, even in the priniitive hited that bcs
1 Epistola 76. 12.6. 8. 802 ff. and 411, 3S. 861.
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 471i
caused schisms: this was the case, for instance, in the Nova-
tian schism. But as the synods of the fourth century, and
particularly that. of Antioch, held in 341,’ treat of the same
subject as the thirty-second apostolic canon, Drey? considers
that this canon was formed after the fifth of Antioch. . But we
will here once more recall what we said on the tenth canon.
Can. 33 (3 1).
Εἴ τις πρεσβύτερος ἢ ἢ διάκονος ἀπὸ ἐπισκόπου γένηται ἀφω-
ρισμένος, τοῦτον μὴ ἐξεῖναι map ἑτέρου δέχεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ παρὰ
τοῦ ἀφορίσαντος αὐτὸν, εἰ μὴ ἂν κατὰ συγκυρίαν τελευτήσῃ ὁ
ἀφορίσας αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοπος.
Si quis presbyter aut diaconus ab episcopo suo secregetur,
hune non licere ab alio recipi, sed ab ipso, qui eum sequestra-
verat, nisi forsitan obierit episcopus ipse, qui eum segregasse
cognoscitur.
We have several times had occasion to remark that the
ancient councils gave similar rules to those of the thirty-third
apostolic canon. rey believes this canon to be in substance
of very high antiquity, but in its form taken from the sixth
canon of ‘Antioch.
Can. 34 (92).
MBévn τῶν ξένων ἐπισκόπων ἢ πρεσβυτέρων ἢ διακόνων ἄνευ
συστατικῶν προσδέχεσθαι: καὶ ἐπιφερομένων αὐτῶν ἀνακρινέσ-
θωσαν'" καὶ εἰ μὲν ὦσι κήρυκες τῆς εὐσεβείας, προσδεχέσθωσαν,
εἰ δὲ μήγε, THY χρείαν αὐτοῖς ἐπιχορηγήσαντες εἰς κοινωνίαν
αὐτοὺς μὴ προσδέξησθε' πολλὰ γὰρ κατὰ συναρπαγὴν γίνεται.
Nullus episcoporum peregrinorum aut presbyterorum aut
diaconorum sine commendaticiis recipiatur epistolis; et cum
scripta detulerint, discutiantur attentius, et ita suscipiantur,
si preedicatores pietatis exstiterint; sin minus, hec que sunt
necessaria subministrentur eis, et ad communionem. nulla-
tenus admittantur, quia per subreptionem multa proveniunt.
The thirteenth canon contains a similar rule. In the primi-
tive Church, Christians who travelled could not in fact be
received into a foreign church without. letters of recommen-
dation—Jitteris commendaticiis, Thus, for- instance, about the
middle of the second century, Marcion was not received, at
10. & 2§, 257 and 405.
472 SD OPEN DER,
Rome, because he had no letters with him from his father the
Bishop of Sinope. There is also mention of these letters of
recommendation in the twenty-fifth canon of the Synod of
Elvira, and in the ninth of that of Arles. According to Drey,'
this canon in the main belongs to the most ancient apostolic
canons; but according to the same author, it must have been
arranged after the Apostolic Constitutions,’ and after the seventh
and eighth canons of Antioch, |
Can. 35 (99). ,
Τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρὴ τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς
πρῶτον, καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλὴν, καὶ μηδέν τι πράττειν
περιττὸν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης" ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν
ἕκαστον, ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳ ἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν
χώραις" ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντων γνώμης ποιείτω τι"
οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ Θεὸς διὰ Κυρίου
ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι.
Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit, quis inter eos
primus habeatur, quem velut caput existiment, et nihil am-
plius preter ejus conscientiam gerant quam illa sola singuli,
que parochie proprie et villis, que sub ea sunt, competunt.
Sed nec ille preter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid. Sic
enim unanimitas erit, et glorificabitur Deus per Christum in
Spiritu sancto.
According to Drey’s* researches, this canon is either an
abridgment of the ninth canon of the Council of Antioch, held
in 341, which treats of the same subject, or else this canon
of Antioch is an amplification of the apostolic canon. Drey®
finally adopts the former opinion.
Can. 36 (34).
᾿Επίσκοπον μὴ τολμᾶν ἔξω τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ὅρων χειροτονίας
ποιεῖσθαι εἰς τὰς μὴ ὑποκειμένας αὐτῷ πόλεις καὶ χώρας" εἰ δὲ
ἐλεγχθείη τοῦτο πεποιηκὼς παρὰ τὴν τῶν κατεχόντων τὰς πό-
‘eis ἐκείνας ἢ τὰς χώρας γνώμην, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ
ods ἐχειροτόνησεν.
Episcopum non audere extra terminos proprios ordinationes
facere in civitatibus et villis, que ipsi nullo jure subject
1.2.6. S. 257 if, 2S. 403 and 406. 3 Consist Apost. ii, 58,
4 8. 823-331. 4 5. 400, Φ
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 473
sunt. ‘Si vero convictus fuerit hoc fecisse preeter eorum con-
scientiam, qui civitates illas et villas detinent, et ipse μὰ, τυ
natur, et qui ab eo sunt ordinati.
A similar rule was adopted by the Synod of Elvira,’ by that
of Nicza,? and by that of Antioch.? Drey acknowledges (S.
271 and 406) that the rule here expressed has been observed
from the first times of the Church ; he also makes no difficulty
in classing this canon, inthe main, among the most ancient
apostolic canons. He thinks, besides, that it was taken from
the Synod of Antioch held in 341.
Can. 37 (35).
Εἴ τις χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπίσκοπος μὴ καταδέχοιτο τὴν λειτουρ-
γίαν καὶ τὴν φροντίδα τοῦ λαοῦ τὴν ἐγχειρισθεῖσαν αὐτῷ,
τοῦτον ἀφωρισμένον τυγχάνειν, ἕως ἂν καταδέξηται' ὡσαύτως
καὶ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος. . Ei καὶ μὴ δεχθείη, οὐ παρὰ τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ λαοῦ μοχθηρίαν, αὐτὸς
μενέτω ἐπίσκοπος, ὁ δὲ κλῆρος τῆς πόλεως ἀφοριζέσθω, ὅτι
τοιούτου λαοῦ ἀνυποτάκτου παιδευταὶ οὐκ ἐγένοντο.
Si quis episcopus non susceperit officium et curam populi
sibi commissam, hic communione privetur, quoadusque con-
sentiat obedientiam commodans, similiter autem et presbyter
et diaconus. Si vero perrexerit, nec receptus fuerit non pro
sua sententia, sed pro populi malitia, ipse quidem maneat
episcopus, clerici vero civitatis communione priventur, eo quod
eruditores inobedientis populi non fuerint.
This rule was made partly by the Synod of Ancyra* and
partly by that of Antioch.” Drey® holds this canon to be an
imitation of the two canons of Antioch; but perhaps the con-
trary is really the truth. See the note on canon 10,
Can: 98 (3 6).
Δεύτερον τοῦ ἔτους σύνοδος γινέσθω τῶν ἐπισκόπων, καὶ
ἀνακρινέτωσαν ἀλλήλους τὰ δόγματα τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ τὰς
ἐμπιπτούσας ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ἀντιλογίας διαλυέτωσαν'" ἅπαξ
μὲν τῇ τετάρτῃ ἑβδομάδι τῆς πεντηκοστῆς, δεύτερον δὲ tials
βερεταίου δωδεκάτῃ.
eee * TS, TTS 5. ©, 13 and 22. °
406. 18.. © Ὁ... 17 atid 18: Ὁ. 6ὴ᾽.ς. 5. 294.and'40€
474 ἌΣ 7) APPENDIX,
Bis in anno episcoporum concilia celebrentur, ut inter se
invicem dogmata pietatis explorent, et emergentes ecclesias-
ticas contentiones amoveant : semel quidem quarta septimana
pentecostes, secundo vero duodecima die mensis Hyperberetzei
(id est juxta Romanos quarto idus Octobris).
᾿ς The Synods of Nicsea’ and of Antioch? also gave rules about
provincial synods. According to Drey,® this canon must be
more recent than these two Synoda, and especially must have
been taken from the canon of Antioch, ᾿
Can. 39 (37).
Πάντων τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων 6 ἐπίσκοπος ἐχέτω
τὴν φροντίδα καὶ διοικείτω αὐτὰ, ὡς Θεοῦ ἐφορῶντος" μὴ
ἐξεῖναι δὲ αὐτῷ σφετερίζεσθαί τι ἐξ αὐτῶν ἢ συγγενέσιν ἰδίοις
τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ χαρίζεσθαι: εἰ δὲ πένητες εἶεν, ἐπιχορηγείτω ὡς
πένησιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ προφάσει τούτων τὰ τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας ἀπεμ-
πολείτω.
Omnium negotiorum ecclesiasticorum curam episcopus ha-
beat, et ea velut Deo contemplante dispenset ; nec ei liceat
ex his aliquid omnino contingere, aut parentibus propriis que
Dei sunt condonare. Quod si pauperes sunt, tanquam pau-
peribus subministret, nec eorum occasione Ecclesie negotia
depreedetur. 7
This canon and the two following are in a measure similar
to the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth canons of Antioch; so
that Drey considers them more recent, and derived from those
two canons. But see what was said about the tenth canon.
Can. 40 (38). !
Oi πρέσβύτεροι καὶ οἱ διάκονοι ἄνευ γνώμης τοῦ ἐπισκόποὺ
μηδὲν ἐπιτελείτωσαν" αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ πεπιστευμένος τὸν
λαὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, 1 καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν eee: αὐτῶν ν Meet ἀπαι-
ὑρθησόμενος, sath >
Cay. — (3 9). ee Ἷ
Ἔστω φανερὰ τὰ. ἴδια τοῦ ἐπισκόπου πρἄγματα,. "εἴγε. «καὶ
ἴδια ἔχει, καὶ φανερὰ. τὰ κυριακὰ, ἵνα ἐξουσΐαν ἔχῃ τῶν ἰδίων
τελευτῶν ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, οἷς βούλεται καὶ ὡς βούλεται καταλεῖψκαι,
καὶ μὴ προφάσει τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων διαπίπτειν
50, 6. Δ 3.0, 20,055 «) “88, 884 and 408, 1"
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, ANS
τὰ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, ἐσθ᾽ ὅτε. γυναῖκα καὶ παῖδας κεκτημένου ἡ
συγγενεῖς ἢ οἰκέτας" δίκαιον γὰρ τοῦτο παρὰ Θεῷ καὶ ἀνθρώ-
mos τὸ μήτε τὴν ᾿Εκκλησίαν ζημίαν τινὰ ὑπομένειν ἀγνοίᾳ τῶν
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου πραγμάτων, μήτε τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἢ τοὺς αὐτοῦ
συγγενεῖς προφάσει τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας πημαίνεσθαι, ἢ καὶ εἰς
πράγματα ἐμπίπτεν τοὺς αὐτῷ διαφέροντας, καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ
θάνατον δυσφημίαις περιβάλλεσθαι.
Presbyteri et diaconi preter episcopum nihil agere perten-
tent, nam Domini populus ipsi commissus est, et. pro animabus
eorum hic redditurus est rationem. Sint autem manifeste
res propriz episcopi (si tamen habet proprias) et. manifestae
dominic, ut potestatem habeat de propriis moriens episcopus,
sicut. voluerit et quibus voluerit relinquere, nec sub occasione
ecclesiasticarum rerum, que episcopi sunt, intercidant, fortassis
enim aut uxorem habet, aut filios aut propinquos aut servos.
Et justum est hoc apud Deum et homines, ut nec Ecclesia
detrimentum patiatur ignoratione rerum pontificis, nec epis:
copus vel ejus propinqui sub obtentu Ecclesiz proscribantur,
et in causas incidant qui ad eum pertinent, morsque ejus
injuriis male fame subjaceat.
See our remarks on the thirty-ninth canon.
Can. 41 (40).
Προστάττομεν ἐ ἐπίσκοπον ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν τῶν τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας
πραγμάτων' εἰ γὰρ τὰς τιμίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων “ψυχὰς αὐτῷ
πιστευτέον,. πολλῷ ἂν μᾶλλον δέοι ἐπὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἐντέλ-
λεσθαι, ὥστε κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐξουσίαν πάντα διοικεῖσθαι, καὶ
τοῖς δεομένοις διὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. καὶ διακόνων ἐπιχωρη-
γεῖσθαι μετὰ φόβου, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πάσης εὐλαβείας: μεταλαμ-
βάνειν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν τῶν δεόντων (εἴγε δέοιτο) εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας
αὐτῷ χρείας καὶ τῶν ἐπιξενουμένων ἀδελφῶν, ὡς κατὰ μηδένα
τρόπον αὐτοὺς ὑστερεῖσθαι' ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ. διετάξατο,
τοὺς τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ ὑπηρετοῦντας ἐκ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. τρέ-
φεσθαι ἐπείπερ οὐδὲ στρατιῶταί ποτε ἰδίοις ὀφωνίοις ὅπλα
κατὰ πολεμίων ἐπιφέρονται. eid
-Precipimus, ut in potestate: sua episcopus Ecclesiz res
habeat. Si enim anime hominum pretiosze illi sunt credits,
multo magis oportet eum curam pecuniarum gerere, ita ut
potestate ejus indigentibus omnia dispensentur per presby-
476 : APPENDIX.
teros et diaconos, et cum timore omnique sollicitudine’ mini-
strentur, ex his autem quibus indiget, si tamen indiget, ad suas
necessitates et ad peregrinorum fratrum usus et ipse percipiat,
ut nihil omnino possit ei deesse. Lex enim Dei precipit, ut
qui altari deserviunt, de altari pascantur ; quia nec miles sti-
pendiis propriis contra hostes arma sustulit.
See our remarks on the thirty-ninth canon,
CaN. 42 (41).
᾿Επίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος κύβοις σχολάζων Kat
μέθαις ἢ παυσάσθω ἢ καθαιρείσθω.
Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus 8166 atque ebrietati
deserviens, aut desinat, aut certe damnetur. :
The Council of Elvira, in its seventy-ninth canon, has a
similar prohibition of the game of thimbles. As to the diffe-
rent kinds of usury of which the forty-fourth apostolic canon
speaks, they were all prohibited by the twentieth canon of
Elvira, the twelfth of Arles, and the seventeenth of Nica.
This and the two following canons should be included in the
number of the most ancient so- recalled apostolic canons. _ Their
origin is unknown.’
Can. 43 (42).
Ὑποδιάκονος ἢ ἢ ψάλτης ἢ ἢ ἀναγνώστης τὰ ὅμοια ποιῶν ἢ παυ-
ciclo ἡ ἀφοριζέσθω, ὡσαύτως καὶ οἱ λαϊκοΐ. :
Subdiaconus, lector aut cantor similia faciens, aut desinat,
aut communione privetur. Similiter etiam laicus.
Compare the remarks on the forty-second canon. ©
Can, 44 (43). παν act:
᾿Επίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος 1 ἢ διάκονος τόκους ἀπαιτῶν τοὺς
δανειζομένους ἢ παυσάσθω ἢ καθαιρείσθω.
Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus usuras.a debitoribus
‘exigens, aut desinat, aut certe damnetur.
Compare Si ponerse on the forty-second canon.
Can. 45 (44).
᾿πίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος αἱρετικοῖς συνευξά-
μένος. μόνον, ἀφοριξέσθω' εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς ὡς κληρί-
"κοῖς ἐνεργῆσαί τι, καθαιρείσθω. 7 dats :
: 1 Cf. Drey, Lc. 8, 241 ρα: 8 δ gin!
i
TIE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. Av?
Episcopus, presbyter et diaconus, qui cum hereticis oraverit
tantummodo, communione privetur ; si vero tanquam clericus
hortatus eos fuerit agere vel orare, damnetur.
This canon is merely an application to a particular case of
general rules given by the apostles, and this application must
have been made from the first centuries: therefore this canon
must in its substance be very ancient." Yet Drey” believes
that it was derived from the ninth, thirty-third, and thirty-
fourth canons of the Council of Laodicea.
Can. 46 (45).
᾿Επίσκοπον ἢ πρεσβύτερον αἱρετικῶν δεξάμενον βάπτισμα ἢ
θυσίαν καθαιρεῖσθαι προστάττομεν’ Tis γὰρ συμφώνησις τοῦ
“Χριστοῦ πρὸς τὸν Βελίαλ ; ἢ τίς μερὶς πιστοῦ μετὰ ἀπίστου ;
Episcopum aut presbyterum heereticorum suscipientem bap-
tisma damnari precipimus. Que enim conventio Christi ad
Belial, aut quee pars fideli cum infideli ?
Drey holds this canon and the one following to be very
ancient.® Déllinger, on the contrary, as we have said,‘ con-
siders it to be more recent. This opinion had before been
enunciated by Peter de Marca, who argued justly, that if this
canon had been in existence at the period of the discussion
upon baptism administered by heretics, that is, about the year
255, S. Cyprian and Firmilian would not have failed to quote
it? This canon and the following are taken from the Apos-
tolic Constitutions.§
Can. 47 (46).
Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος τὸν κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν ἔχοντα βάπ-
τισμα ἐὰν ἄνωθεν βαπτίσῃ, ἢ τὸν μεμολυσμένον παρὰ τῶν
ἀσεβῶν ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσῃ, καθαιρείσθω, ὡς γελῶν τὸν σταυρὸν
καὶ τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου θάνατον καὶ μὴ διακρίνων ἱερέας τῶν ψευ-
διερέων.
Episcopus aut presbyter, si eum qui secundum veritatem
habuerit baptisma,-denuo baptizaverit, aut. si pollutum ab
implis non baptizaverit, deponatur tanquam deridens crucem
ΤῸΝ Drey, lc. S. 253. 2S. 410.
7 4c. 8 260 ἢ 48 6,
5 Marea, de Concord. sacerd. et imperii, lib. iii. 6. 2, § 2-5.
© vi, 15. - 2D. & τα
478, . APPENDIX,
et mortem Domini, nec sacerdotes a falsis sacerdotibus j sire
discernens,
See the remarks on the ΔΑ ΡΝ ΔΩΣ canon,
Can. 48 (47),
Εἴ τις λαϊκὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐκβάλλων ἑτέραν λάβῃ ἣ
mao ἄλλου ἀπολελυμένην, ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis laicus uxorem propriam pellens, alteram vel ab 8110
dimissam duxerit, communione privetur,
The same rule was given by the eighth and tenth canons
of Elvira, and by the tenth of Arles. Drey* reckons this
canon among the most ancient. Its source is unknown,
Can. 49 (48).
Ei τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος Kata τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου διά-
ταξιν μὴ βαπτίσῃ εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ἀλλ᾽
εἰς τρεῖς ἀνάρχους ἢ τρεῖς υἱοὺς ἢ τρεῖς παρακλήτους, καθαι-
ρείσθω.
ΟἹ quis episcopus aut presbyter juxta preceptum Domini
non baptizaverit in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti,
sed in tribus sine initio principilis, aut in tribus filiis, aut in
tribus paracletis, abjiciatur.
This canon must be reckoned among the most ancient
canons, and is taken from the Apostolic Constitutions,”
Can. 50 (49).
Ei τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος μὴ τρία βαπτίσματα μιᾶς
μυήσεως ἐπιτελέσῃ, GAN ἕν βάπτισμα εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ
Κυρίου διδόμενον, καθαιρείσθω" οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος" Εἰς τὸν
θάνατον μου βαπτίσατε, ἀλλὰ" Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα
τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ
Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter non trinam mersionem
unlus mysterii celebret, sed semel mergat in baptismate, quod
dari videtur in Domini morte, deponatur, Non enim dixit
nobis Dominus: In morte mea baptizate ; ; sed: Euntes docete
omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filu et
Spiritus sancti.
1§, 251
# vi. 11,26. Of. Drey, lc. 5, 262 and 404,
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 479.
This canon is among the most recent of the collection.’
It is not known from what source it was derived.
Here the Latin translation made by Dionysius the Less
ends. From the fifty-first canon we give the translation by
Cotelerius.
Can. 51 (50),
Ei τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ
καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ γάμων καὶ κρεῶν καὶ οἴνου οὐ δι
ἄσκησιν ἀλλὰ διὰ βδελυρίαν ἀπέχεται, ἐπιλαθόμενος ὅτι πάντα
καλὰ λίαν, καὶ ὅτι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον,
ἀλλὰ βλασφημῶν διαβάλλει τὴν δημιουργίαν, ἢ διορθούσθω ἢ
καθαιρείσθω καὶ τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας ἀποβαλλέσθω: ὡσαύτως καὶ
λαϊκός.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, aut omnino
ex numero clericorum, a nuptiis et carne et vino non propter
exercitationem, verum propter detestationem abstinuerit, obli-
tus quod omnia sunt valde bona, et quod masculum et femi-
nam Deus fecit hominem, sed blasphemans accusaverit crea-
tionem, vel corrigatur, vel deponatur, atque ex Ecclesia
ejiciatur. Itidem et laicus. |
This canon is evidently directed against the Gnostics and
Manichzans, who, in accordance with their dualistic theory,
declare matter to be satanic. Therefore it may be said to be
very ancient, that is, from the second or third century: it is
very similar to the ordinances in the Apostolic Constitutions.”
Can. 52 (51).
Ei τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος τὸν ἐπιστρέφοντα ἀπὸ
ἁμαρτίας οὐ προσδέχεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποβάλλεται, καθαιρείσθω, ὅτι
λυπεῖ Χριστὸν τὸν εἰπόντα᾽ Χαρὰ γίνεται ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐπὶ ἑνὶ
ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter eum, qui se convertit a
peccato, non receperit sed ejecerit, deponatur, quia contristat
Christum dicentem: Gaudium oritur in ccelo super uno pec-
catore pcenitentiam agente.
This canon in substance belongs to a period before the end
of the third century, and is directed against the severity of
1Cf. Drey, U.c. 5. 361 ff.
3 Constit. Apostol. 1. vi. c. 8, 10, 26. Cf. Drey, Uc. S. 281 and 404,
480. ἋΣ APPENDIX, τὴ ἢ
the Montanists and Novatians, It is taken from the Apos-
tolic Constitutions,
Can. 53 (52).
Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις
τῶν ἑορτῶν οὐ μεταλαμβάνει κρεῶν καὶ οἴνου, βδελυσσόμενος
καὶ οὐ δὲ ἄσκησιν, καθαιρείσθω ὡς κεκαυτηριασμένος τὴν ἰδίαν
συνείδησιν, καὶ αἴτιος σκανδάλου πολλοῖς γινόμενος.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus in diebus festis
non sumit carnem aut vinum, deponatur, ut qui cauteriatam
habet suam conscientiam, multisque sit causa scandali,
This canon, like the fifty-first, is aimed against the Gnostic
and Manichan errors, and probably is of the same antiquity.
It was also taken from the Apostolic Constitutions.’
Can. 54 (53).
Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ἐν καπηλείῳ φωραθείη ἐσθίων, ἀφοριζέσθω,
παρὲξ τοῦ ἐν πανδοχείῳ ἐν ὁδῷ δι’ ἀνάγκην καταλύσαντος.
Si quis clericus in caupona comedens deprehensus fuerit,
seoregetur, preterquam si ex necessitate de via divertat ad
hospitium.
This canon is very ancient, and of unknown origin.°
Can. 55 (54).
Εἴ. τις κληρικὸς ὑβρίζει τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, καθαιρείσθω" ”Ap-
yovTa γὰρ τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐκ ἐρεῖς κακῶς.
Si quis clericus episcopum contumelia affecerit injuste, de-
ponatur; ait enim Scriptura: Principi populi tui non male-
dices.
Drey supposes* that this canon and the one following are
not ancient: 1st, because in the primitive Church the clergy
would not have behaved so outrageously against a bishop;
and 2d, because the lower clergy, whom the fifty-sixth canon
mentions, were not known in the primitive Church,—bishops,
priests, and deacons not being distinguished. The source of
the canon is unknown.
1 Constit. Apostol. 2, 12 ff. Cf. Drey, 1.6. 8. 277 and 404,.
2 Constit. Apostol. v. 20, Cf. Drey, Uc. S. 285 and 404.
3 Cf. Drey, S. 245,
ὁ ὃ, 299,
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 481
| Can. 56 (55).
ες Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ὑβρίζει πρεσβύτερον ἢ διάκονον, ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis clericus presbyterum vel diaconum injuria affecerit,
segrecetur.
See the remarks on the preceding canon.
Can. 57 (56).
Εἴ τις [κληρικὸς] χωλὼν ἢ κωφὸν ἢ τυφλὸν ἢ τὰς βάσεις
πεπληγμένον χλευάζει, ἀφοριζέσθω' ὡσαύτως καὶ λαϊκός.
Si quis clericus mutilatum, vel surdum aut mutum, vel
eecum aut pedibus debilem irriserit, segregetur. Item et
laicus.
The coarseness alluded to in this canon, as also in the
fifty-fifth, proves that it was formed at a recent period.’
Can. 58 (57).
Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἀμελῶν τοῦ κλήρου ἢ τοῦ λαοῦ
καὶ μὴ παιδεύων αὐτοὺς τὴν εὐσέβειαν, ἀφοριζέσθω, ἐπιμένων
δὲ τῇ ῥαθυμίᾳ καθαιρείσθω.
Episcopus aut presbyter clerum vel populum negligens,
nec eos docens pietatem, segregetur ; si autem in socordia per-
severet, deponatur.
This canon seems to have been formed towards the middle
of the fourth century, at a time when the clergy, and espe-
cially the bishops, often left their churches, and betook them-
selves frequently to the city where the Emperor resided.”
Can. 59 (58).
Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερός τινος τῶν κληρικῶν ἐνδεοῦς
ὄντος μὴ ἐπιχορηγεῖ τὰ δέοντα, ἀφοριζέσθω: ἐπιμένων δὲ καθαι-
ρείσθω, ὡς φονεύσας τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter, cum aliquis clericorum
inopia laborat, ei non suppeditet necessaria, segregetur; quod
si perseveret, deponatur, ut occidens fratrem suum.
We may repeat here what was said about the canons 39—41,
to which the present canon is related. Drey*® considers it to
be more recent than the somewhat similar twenty-fifth canon
of the Synod of Antioch of the year 341.
1 Drey, 1,0» 5. 300.” 2 Drey, lc. S. 800 ff. 3S. 302 ff.
2H
482 7 APPENDIX.
Can. 60 (59).
Ei τις τὰ ψευδεπίγραφα τῶν ἀσεβῶν βιβλία ws ἅγια ἐπὶ
τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας δημοσιεύει ἐπὶ λύμῃ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ κλήρου,
καθαιρείσθω. |
Si quis falso inscriptos impiorum libros, tanquam sacros in
Ecclesia divulgarit, ad perniciem populi et cleri, deponatur.
This canon belongs in substance to the second century of
the Christian era. It bears a certain similarity to the Apos-
tolic Constitutions ;1 but, according to Drey,’ it must have
been composed much later, as he concludes from the expres-
sions “to spread in the Church,” and “ people and clergy,” which
entered into ecclesiastical language at a later period.
| Can. 61 (60).
E? τις κατηγορία γένηται κατὰ πιστοῦ πορνείας ἢ μοιχείας ἢ
ἄλλης τινὸς ides Resa? πράξεως καὶ ἐλεγχθείη, εἰς κλῆρον
μὴ ἀγέσθω.
Si qua fiat accusatio contra fidelem, fornicationis vel adul-
terii, vel alterius cujusdam facti prohibiti, et convictus fuerit,
is non provehatur ad clerum.
This canon belongs to the third century.® A similar rule
was made in the thirtieth and seventy-sixth canons of Elvira,
in the ninth of Neocesarea, and in the ninth and tenth of
Nica. The source of this canon is unknown.
Can. 62 (61).
Εἴ τις κληρικὸς διὰ φόβον ἀνθρώπινον ᾿Ιουδαίου ἢ “EdAnvos
ἢ αἱρετικοῦ ἀρνήσηται, εἰ μὲν ὄνομα Χριστοῦ, ἀποβαλλέσθω, εἰ
δὲ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κληρικοῦ, καθαιρείσθω: μετανοήσας δὲ ὡς
λαϊκὸς δεχθήτω.
Si quis clericus propter metum humanum Judeei vel gen-
tilis vel heeretici negaverit, siquidem nomen Christi, segre-
getur; si vero nomen clerici, deponatur; si autem pceniten-
tiam egerit, ut laicus recipiatur.
Drey* thinks that the persecutions of the Christians at the
commencement of the fourth century, under the Emperors
Diocletian, Galerius, Maximin, and Licinius, gave occasion for
this canon, which is from an unknown source.
1 vi, 16. | 272.¢. 9. 281.
3 Cf. Drey, le. S. 243. 4 ἴςς, S. 316.
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 483
Can. 63 (6 2).
Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ y) διάκονος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ κατα-
λόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ φάγῃ κρέα ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ ἢ θηριά-
λωτον ἢ θνησιμαῖον, καθαιρείσθω τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ νόμος ἀπεῖπεν.
Εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς εἴη, ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, aut omnino
ex catalogo clericorum, manducaverit carnem in sanguine
anime: ejus, vel captum a bestia, vel morticinium, deponatur ;
id enim lex quoque interdixit. Quod si laicus sit, segregetur.
This canon must be classed among the most ancient of the
collection.’
Can. 64 (63).
Hi τις κληρικὸς ἢ λαϊκὸς εἰσέλθη εἰς συναγωγὴν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἢ
αἱρετικῶν συνεύξασθαι, καθαιρείσθω καὶ ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis clericus vel laicus ingressus fuerit synagogam Judee-
orum vel hereticorum ad orandum, ille deponatur, hic segre-
getur,
The same remark applies to this as to the sixty-third canon.
This canon was formed from the Apostolic Constitutions.
Can. 65 (64).
Ei τις κληρικὸς ἐν μάχῃ τινὰ κρούσας καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς
κρούσματος ἀποκτείνει, καθαιρείσθω διὰ τὴν προπέτειαν αὐτοῦ:
εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς εἴη, ἀφοριξέσθω.
Si quis clericus in contentione aliquem ferierit, atque ex
ictu occiderit, deponatur ob suam precipitantiam ; laicus vero
segregetur.
It was not thought necessary to make such a law as this
during the ancient Church: it was only subsequently, in the
midst of the contentions excited by Arianism, that it became
indispensable that such acts of brutality should be condemned.
The origin of this canon is unknown. We must remark,
further, that according to the order followed in the apostolie
canons, where they are placed after the Apostolic Constitutions
(as in Cotelerius, Galland, Drey), the present canon follows the
sixty-sixth, so that they change places. We prefer to follow
1 Cf. Drey, 2.6. 5. 249.
2. Constit. Apostol. ii. 61, Cf. Drey, l.c. S. 254 and 404.
3 See above, C. 28; and Drey, lc. 5. 341 {£
484 Rye at APPENDIX. .
the order which is observed i in the ancient collections of canons
and of councils.
CAN. 66 (65).
Ei τις κληρικὸς εὑρεθῇ τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν νηστεύων 7) TO
σάββατον πλὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς μόνου, καθαιρείσθω" εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς,
ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis clericus inventus fuerit die dominica vel sabbato,
preter unum solum, jejunans, deponatur; si fuerit laicus,
segrecetur.
In some countries—for instance in Rome, and also in Spain—
Saturday was a fast-day; but in other countries this fast was
not observed,’ and this difference is very ancient. The custom
of fasting on Sunday is to be met with only among those
sects who professed a sort of Gnostic dualism,—for instance,
the Marcionites. It may therefore be said that this canon
belongs to the most ancient of the collection, and that it is
formed from the Apostolic Constitutions.’
Can. 67 (66).
Εἴ τις παρθένον ἀμνήστευτον βιασαμενος ἔχει, ἀφοριζέσθω"
μὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ αὐτῷ ἑτέραν λαμβάνειν adr’ ἐκείνην, ἥν she
κἂν πενιχρὰ τυγχάνῃ.
Si quis virginem non desponsatam vi illata teneat, segre-
getur, nec aliam ducat, sed hanc, quam sic elegit, retineat,
etiamsi paupercula fuerit.
The eleventh canon of Ancyra μὰ before condemned the
rape of girls, but it concerned only those girls who were be-
trothed, as also did S. Basil the Great, in the twenty-second
chapter of his second canonical letter to Amphilochius.’ As, in
point of severity, this canon holds the middle course between
the ancient ordinances of Ancyra and of S. Basil, and the
more recent rules of the Council of Chalcedon,’ Drey con-
cludes® that its origin must be referred to the period between
these Councils of Ancyra and Chalcedon, and it must there-
fore be considered as among the most recent of the collection.
1 See above, the explanation of the canons of the Synod of Elvira; and Drey,
Lc. 8, 285.
2y. 20. Cf. Drey, 1.6. S. 283 ff. and 404, where it is numbered 65.
3 Opp. iii. 293, ed. Bened, 4, 27; 5c. S. 349.
TIIE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 485
He goes so far as to think’ that we should not be wrong in
regarding it as an imitation of the twenty-second canon of
Chalcedon. |
Can. 68 (67).
Ei τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος δευτέραν χειρο-
τονίαν δέξεται παρά τινος, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ χειρο-
τονήσας, εἴ μήγε ἄρα συσταίη, ὅτι παρὰ αἱρετικῶν ἔχει τὴν
χειροτονίαν" τοὺς γὰρ παρὰ τῶν τοιούτων βαπτισθέντας ἢ χειρο-
τονηθέντας οὔτε πιστοὺς οὔτε κληρικοὺς εἶναι δυνατόν.
Si quis episcopus vel presbyter aut diaconus secundam
ordinationem acceperit ab aliquo, deponatur et ipse, et qui
eum ordinavit, nisi ostendat ab hereticis ordinationem se
habere; a talibus enim baptizati et ordinati. neque fideles
neque clerici esse possunt.
The same remark applies to this as to the forty-sixth
canon.” Its origin is not known.
Can. 69 (6 8).
Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ἀναγνώστης ἢ
ψάλτης τὴν ἁγίαν τεσσαρακοστὴν τοῦ πάσχα ἢ τετράδα ἢ
παρασκευὴν οὐ νηστεύοι, καθαιρείσθω, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ δι’ ἀσθένειαν
σωματικὴν ἐμποδίζοιτο" εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς εἴη, ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus aut lector aut
cantor sanctam Quadragesimam non jejunat, aut quartam sex-
tamque feriam, deponatur, nisi infirmitate corporis impediatur ;
laicus vero segregetur.
The custom of fasting before Easter, during Tent, is very
ancient. SS. Irenzeus even believes that it ΣΟ ΣΎΣΙ from the
apostles. Therefore Drey considers this canon to be one of
the most ancient, and that it may be traced back to about the
third century.» In another passage,* Drey gives it as his
opinion that this canon and the one following were taken
from the spurious Epistle of 8. Ignatius to the Philippians.°
Can. 70 (69).
. Ev τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ
καταλόγου τῶν κληρικῶν νηστεύοι μετὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἢ συνεορ-
15. 419. 2 Cf. Drey, 26. S. 263, 3 Drey, δά 55) 250.
*4.8, 412, ὅ 6, 13 and 14. ie 2° τ
486 APPENDIX.
τάζοι per’ αὐτῶν ἢ δέχοιτο παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὰ τῆς ἑορτῆς ξένια, οἷον
ἄξυμα ἢ τι τοιοῦτον, καθαιρείσθω" εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis episcopus aut alius clericus cum Judeeis jejunet, vel
dies festos agat, aut festorum munera ab ipsis accipiat, veluti
azyma hisque similia, deponatur; si laicus hee fecerit, segre-
getur.
According to Drey,' this canon and the one following date
from the end of the third or the middle of the fourth cen-
tury. The Synod of Elvira had before recommended, in its
forty-ninth and fiftieth canons, that too intimate connections.
with Jews should be avoided. Drey?’ is, however, of opinion
that this canon and the one following were derived from the
thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, and thirty-ninth canons’ of
Laodicea.
CAN. 11 (70).
Ei τις Χριστιανὸς ἔλαιον ἀπενέγκη eis ἱερὰ ἐθνῶν ἢ eis
συναγωγὴν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς αὐτῶν, ἢ λύχνους ἅπτει,
ἀφοριζέσθω.
Si quis christianus ad templa Gentilium aut ad synagogas
Judzorum oleum deferat, vel in istorum festis lucernas accen-
dat, segregetur.
See the comments on the preceding canon. The Council
of Elvira had before made several rules for preventing Chris-
tians from communicating in sacris with pagans.’
Can. 72 (71).
Ei τις κληρικὸς ἢ λαϊκὸς ἀπὸ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας ἀφέληταε
κηρὸν ἢ ἔλαιον, ἀφοριζέσθω [καὶ τὸ ἐπίπεμπτον προστιθέτω μεθ᾽
οὗ ἔλαβεν].
Clericus aut laicus ceram aut oleum 6 sancta ecclesia aufe-
rens, segregetur, ultraque ablatum quintam partem restituat.
The robbery here spoken of shows that this canon was
formed in corrupt times: it must therefore be reckoned among
the least ancient, and is of unknown origin.
Can. 73 (72).
Σ κεῦος χρυσοῦν καὶ ἀργυροῦν ἁγιασθὲν ἢ ὀθόνην μηδεὶς ἔτι
εἰς οἰκείαν χρῆσιν σφετεριζέσθω: παράνομον γάρ. Ei δέ τις
φωραθείη, ἐπιτιμάσθω αφορισμῷ.
3 ὃς, 8. 287, 2S. 410, 3 0, 2-4 and 55-57, *Cf. Drey, lc. 5, 345 ἢ,
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 487
Vasa argentea aureave, necnon linteamina Deo consecrata
nemo deinceps in proprios usus vertat, nefas enim est. De-
prehensus in eo segregatione multetur.
What this canon says is entirely in harmony with the
views and customs of the ancient Church. It supposes, indeed,
an opulence which the churches hardly possessed in the first
ages: it is proved, however, that from the third century
several churches were in possession of a considerable number
of vessels of gold and silver. We may therefore trace this
seventy-third canon back as far as the second half of the third
century. Drey,' however, holds it to be more recent; it is of
unknown origin.
Can. 74 (78...
Ἐπίσκοπον κατηγορηθέντα ἐ ἐπί τινι παρὰ ἀξιοπίστων ἀνθρώ-
πων, καλεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπισκόπων" κἂν μὲν
ἀπαντήσῃ καὶ ὁμολογήσῃ ἢ ἐλεγχθείη, ὁρίζεσθαι τὸ ἐπιτίμιον"
εἰ δὲ καλούμενος μὴ ὑπακούσοι, καλείσθω καὶ δεύτερον, ἀποσ-
τελλομένων ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν δύο ἐπισκόπων" ἐὰν δὲ καὶ οὕτω καταφρο-
νήσας μὴ ἀπαντήσῃ, ἡ σύνοδος ἀποφαινέσθω κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὰ
δοκοῦντα, ὅπως μὴ δόξῃ κερδαίνειν φυγοδικῶν.
Episcopum ab hominibus christianis et fide dignis de
crimine accusatum in jus vocent episcopi. Si vocationi paruerit
responderitque, fueritque convictus, poena decernatur; si vero
vocatus haud paruerit, missis ad eum duobus episcopis iterum
vocetur; ‘si ne sic quidem paruerit, duo rursus ad eum missi
tertio vocent episcopi. Si hanc quoque missionem aspernatus
non venerit, pronunciet contra eum synodus que videbuntur,
ne ex judicii detrectatione lucrum facere videatur.
This canon and the one following are certainly ancient in
some parts; but they are undoubtedly subsequent to the
Council of Nicwa. Drey? supposes that this canon was
formed in compliance with what the Synod of Chalcedon
decreed against Dioscurus. See our remarks at the com-
mencement of the Appendix. |
- CAN, 75 (74).
, \
Eis μαρτυρίαν. τὴν κατ᾽ ἐπισκόπου αἱρετικὸν μὴ προσδέ-
᾿ς, 5, 306.
22c.S. 335 fl‘and 412
488 scysotes © > - APPENDIX, -᾿
χέσθαι, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ πιστῶν ἕνα μόνον" ἐπὶ στόματος γὰρ δύο ἢ
τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα.
Ad testimonium contra episcopum dicendum nec hereticum
hominem admittite, nec etiam fidelem unicum; ait enim lex:
In ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum.
See the comments on the preceding canon.
Can. 76 (75).
Ort οὐ χρὴ ἐπίσκοπον τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἢ υἱῷ ἢ ἑτέρῳ συγγενεῖ
χαρίζεσθαι πάθει ἀνθρωπίνῳ" οὐ γὰρ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾿Εκκλησίαν
ὑπὸ κληρονόμους ὀφείλει τιθέναι" εἰ δέ τις τοῦτο ποιήσει, ἄκυρος
μενέτω ἡ χειροτονία, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιτιμάσθω ἀφορισμῷ.
Episcopum fratri suo, aut filio vel alteri propinquo episco-
patum largiri, et quos 1086 vult, ordinare non decet; equum
enim non est, ut Dei dona humano affectu divendantur, et
Ecclesia Christi, episcopatusque hereditatum jura sequatur.
Si quis ita fecerit, ejus quidem ordinatio sit irrita, ipse vero
segregationis ferat poenam.
The twenty-third canon of the Synod of Antioch, in 341,
makes a rule almost similar to this in the main. Therefore
Drey* believes that the apostolic canon was formed from that
of Antioch.
Can. 77 (76).
Εἴ τις ἀνάπηρος ἢ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἢ τὸ σκέλος πεπληγμένος,
ἄξιος δέ ἐστιν, ἐπίσκοπος γινέσθω" οὐ γὰρ λώβη σώματος αὐτὸν
μιαίνει, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς μολυσμός.
Si quis fuerit vel oculo leesus vel crure debilis, ceeteroquin
dignus, qui fiat episcopus, fiat; non enim vitium corporis
polluit, sed animi.
The canons 77-79 inclusive belong to the first three cen-
turies of the Church. Their origin is unknown.’
Can. 78 (77).
Κωφὸς δὲ ὧν καὶ τυφλὸς μὴ γινέσθω ἐπίσκοπος" οὐχ ὡς
βεβλαμμένος, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μὴ τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ παρεμποδίζοιτο.
Surdus vero, mutus aut cecus ne fiat episcopus, non quod
pollutus sit, sed ne impediantur ecclesiastica.
17.c. S. 360 ff. and 406,
? Drey, lc. 8. 254 ff.
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS, 489.
ΓΟΥ͂Ν 79..(78λ
Ἔν τις δαίμονα ἔχῃ, κληρικὸς μὴ γινέσθω, CAAA μηδὲ το
πιστοῖς συνευχέσθω' καθαρισθεὶς δὲ προσδεχέσθω καὶ, ἐὰν
ἄξιος, γινέσθω. :
Deemonem qui habet, clericus non sit, nec etiam cum
fidelibus oret. Emundatus autem recipiatur, et si dignus
habeatur, clericus existat.
This canon may have been formed from the Apostolie Con-
stitutions.’
ts
Φ
ἢ
Can. 80 (79).
Tov ἐξ ἐθνικοῦ βίου προσελθόντα καὶ βαπτισθέντα ἢ ἐκ
φαύλης διαγωγῆς οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστι παραυτίκα προχειρίζεσθαι
ἐπίσκοπον" ἄδικον γὰρ τὸν μηδὲ πρόπειραν ἐπιδειξάμενον ἑτέρων
εἶναι διδάσκαλον" εἰ μήπου κατὰ θείαν χάριν τοῦτο γίνεται.
~ Qui ex gentibus, aut post vitam non laudabiliter actam per
baptismum ad ecclesiam accessit, hunc non decet mox prove-
here ad episcopatum ; iniquum enim est, aliorum existere
doctorem, qui probationem non dederit, nisi forte divino id
munere contingat.
ΑΚ. Paul gives a similar rule? Cf. Drey,? who considers 10
to be an imitation of the second canon of Nica.
Can. 81 (8 0).
Εἴπομεν, ὅτε οὐ χρὴ ἐπίσκοπον ἢ πρεσβύτερον καθιέναι
ἑαυτὸν εἰς δημοσίας διοικήσεις, ἀλλὰ προσευκαιρεῖν ταῖς ἐκκλη-
σιαστικαῖς χρείαις" ἢ πειθέσθω οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ποιεῖν ἢ καθαι-
ρείσθω: οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν, κατὰ τὴν
κυριακὴν παρακέλευσιν.
Diximus non oportere, ut episcopus in publicas admini-
strationes sese demittat, sed Ecclesicze utilitatibus vacet. Aut
igitur persuadeatur hoc non facere, aut deponatur. Nemo
enim potest scape dominis servire, juxta Domini admoni-
tionem.
So long as ashton Seediosaiinie, it was exceedingly
dangerous for Christians to accept public offices, because they
obliged those who filled them to communicate often in sacris
with pagans. See (sec. 12) the canons of Elvira, and the com-
1 viii, 32, Cf. Drey, 1c. S. 403. 21 Tim. iii. 6, 2 sqq., and Tit. i. 6.
38. 243. ik} 482 ae
490: APPENDIX.
ments accompanying them. At this period, however, it was
only the laity who competed for public offices: among the
bishops, Paul of Samosata was the first known example of
this kind. Such cases increased when, under Constantine
the Great and his successors, Christianity gained more and
more the upper hand; and it became important to forbid
bishops to accept civil employment .by a special ordinance.
Drey* considers this canon as an abridgment of the third
canon of Chalcedon.
Can. 82 (81).
Οἰκέτας εἰς κλῆρον προχειρίζεσθαι ἄνευ τῆς τῶν Shey
γνώμης, ἀνατροπὴν TO τοιοῦτο ἐργάζεται" εἰ δέ ποτε καὶ ἄξιος
φανείη ὁ οἰκέτης πρὸς χειροτονίαν βαθμοῦ, οἷος καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος
᾿Ονήσιμος ἐφάνη, καὶ συγχωρήσουσιν οἱ δεσπόται καὶ ἐλευθερώ-
gouge καὶ τοῦ οἴκου ἑαυτῶν ἐξαποστελοῦσι, γινέσθω.
Servos invitis dominis ad clerum promoveri non permitti-
mus, ne molestia possessoribus fiat, hoc namque domos evertit.
Si quando vero servus dignus videtur, ut ad ordinationem
ascendat, quemadmodum visus est Onesimus noster, et con-
sentit dominus ac manumittit, suique juris facit, fiat clericus.
We are not in a position to fix the antiquity and origin of
this canon.
Can. 83 (82).
Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος στρατείᾳ σχολάζων
καὶ βουλόμενος ἀμφότερα κατέχειν, “Ῥωμαϊκὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ
ἱερατικὴν διοίκησιν, καθαιρείσθω" τὰ γὰρ τοῦ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι,
καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ.
- Episcopus vel presbyter vel diaconus militie dans operam,
et utraque volens retinere, Romanum magistratum et sacer-
dotalem administrationem, deponatur. Qu enim sunt Cesaris
Ceesari, et quee sunt Dei Deo.
Drey * considers this canon to have been formed from the
seventh of the fourth GEcumenical Council, and consequently
that it is one of the most recent of the collection. See, in
opposition to his opinion, our remarks at the beginning of
this Appendix, - hat
17.c. S. 246 and 411,
2S, 249 and 411.
THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 491
Can. 84 (83).
Ὅστις ὑβρίζει βασιλέα ἢ ἄρχοντα, τιμωρίαν τιννύτω" Kal εἶ
," Ν ’ τὴν Ν νυ > ,
μὲν κληρικὸς, καθαιρείσθω, εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀφοριζέσθω.
Quicunque commiserit aliquid contra jus adversus Czesarem
aut magistratum, puniatur; et quidem si clericus fuerit, de-
ponatur ; si laicus, segregetur.
It might be thought that this canon was formed in a time
of persecution, when it could be more easily understood that
Christians should despise the Emperors; but nevertheless it
was not so. This canon fits in much better to the time of
the Arian struggle, when such offences against the Emperors
were much more abundant. The origin of the canon is
unknown.
Can. 85 (84),
Ἔστω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν κληρικοῖς καὶ λαϊκοῖς βιβλία σεβάσμια.
“ie Aa \ a , , / /
καὶ ἅγια, τῆς μὲν παλαιᾶς διαθήκης Μωυσέως πέντε, Γένεσις,
"E£odos, Aevitixov, ᾿Αριθμοὶ, ΖΔευτερονόμιον" ᾿Ιησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυὴ
ἕν, ‘Pov ἕν, Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων τοῦ βιβλίου
τῶν ἡμερῶν δύο, ᾿Εσθὴρ ἕν, Μαχαβαϊκῶν τρία, ᾿Ιὼβ ἕν, Ψαλ-
/ a a / / 9 \ 3
τήριον ἕν, Σολομῶντος τρία, Παροιμίαι, ᾿Εκκλησιαστὴς, Aicpa
3 ͵ὕ a , aA by sh aA 4 ,ὔ “Δι
ἀσμάτων' Προφητῶν δεκαδύο ἕν, ᾿Ησαΐου ἕν, ᾿Ιερεμίου év,
᾿Ιεζεκιὴλ ἕν, Δανιὴλ ἕν" ἔξωθεν δὲ προσιστορείσθω ὑμῖν, μαν-
θάνειν ὑμῶν τοὺς νέους τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ πολυμαθοῦς Σειράχ.
ε / Ν ma ᾧ ᾧν a a , ’ / /
Hyérepa δὲ, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, Εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα,
Ματθαίου, Μάρκου, Λουκᾶ, Iwdvvov: Παύλου ἐπιστολαὶ δεκα-
τέσσαρες, Πέτρου ἐπιστολαὶ δύο, ᾿Ιωάννου τρεῖς, ᾿Ιακώβου μία,
3 / ,ὔ ΄ P \ ΄ \ e π᾿, a4 a
Ιούδα μία, Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ δύο καὶ ai διαταγαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς
ἐπισκόποις δι’ ἐμοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν ὀκτὼ βιβλίοις προσπεφωνη-
μέναι, ἂς οὐ δεῖ δημοσιεύειν ἐπὶ πάντων διὰ τὼ ἐν αὐταῖς
μυστικὰ, καὶ αἱ Πράξεις ἡμῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων.
Sint autem vobis omnibus, cum clericis tum Jlaicis, libri
venerabiles et sancti: veteris quidem testamenti, Moysis
quinque,—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuterono-
mium; Jesu filii Nave unus; Judicum unus, Ruth unus;
Regnorum quatuor, Paralipomenon libri dierum duo; Esdre
duo; Esther unus; Judith unus; Machabeorum tres; Hiobi
unus; Psalmi centum quinquaginta; Salomonis libri tres,
Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum ; Prophet sex-
1 Cf. Drey, lc. S. 347.
492 : APPENDIX,
decim ; preter hos nominetur vobis etiam Sapientia multiscii
Sirachi, quam adolescentes vestri discant. Nostri autem, id
est libri novi testamenti: Evangelia quatuor, Matthzi, Marci,
Luce, Joannis ; Pauli epistole quatuordecim; Petri due ;
Joannis tres; Jacobi una; Jude una; Clementis epistole
duz; et Constitutiones vobis episcopis per me Clementem
octo libris nuncupaté, quas non oportet inter omnes divul-
gare, ob mystica qué in eis sunt, et Acta nostra apostolorum.
' This is probably the least ancient canon in the whole col-
lection. In most of the Greek manuscripts the apostolic
canons are followed by a short epilogue, containing an ex-
hortation addressed to the bishops, recommending them to.
observe these canons. It ends with a prayer, which is
printed with the apostolic canons in Cotelerius,? Galland?
Mansi,‘ Ueltzen,’ and also in Latin in Drey.®
Cf. Drey, τος S. 370. 2 Patr. Apost. i. 454
8 Bibl. PP. iii. 248. * Vol: 1. Ρ. 47.
ἃ Conatit. ΑΙ ροϑβί. p. 253 sq. 6 dc. S. 235,
INDEX,
nine
Acesius, Novatian Bishop of Con-
stantinople, at the Synod of Nicea,
295, 413.
Achaia, synod in, 92.
Adultery, ecclesiastical punishment
of, 141, 157, 164, 166, 219; of wo-
men with clerics, 165, 223; with
a Jewess or heathen woman, 170;
with the previous knowledge of the
husband, 167, 219 ; connected with
child- murder, whether it breaks
the marriage bond, 164, 167, 220;
of a cleric, 223.
Elia (see Jerusalem).
Agape, 213.
Age, canonical, for a priest, 228.
Agrippinus, Bishop of Carthage, 86,
92, 104, 106.
Alexander, made Bishop of Alexan-
dria, 242; opposes Arius, 247 ; his
two letters against Arius, 248, 249 ;
a third Jetter of his, 250; his doc-
trine, 249...
Alexandria, synods at, on account of
Origen, 87 ; on account of Meletius,
130 ; Arius, 247, 248; the Alex-
andrian Church before Arius, did
not hold Arian doctrine, 236; the
patriarchal rights of, confirmed at
Nicza, 389.
Anatolius, his Easter canon, 320.
Anchialus, synod at, 78.
Ancyra, synod at (314), 199; canons
of, 201.
Antioch, three synods at, on account
of Paul of Samosata, 118 ff. ; pre-
tended letter of third synod, 120 ;
relation of the school of, to the doc-
trine of the Logos, 237; the patri-
archal rights of, confirmed at Nicza,
389.
Apollinaris, of Hierapolis, on the
Easter question, 310.
Apostasy, and return to the Church,
146, 157, 195, 196; treatment of
apostates in sickness, 195, 196.
(Cf. Dying.)
Apostolic canons, their antiquity, 107,
449 ; their publication, 449 ; their
value, 450 ; their sources, 454; edi-
tions of them, 457.
Apostolic Council, 77.
Appeals, to the Emperor, 178, 180,
197 ; to the Pope, 356.
Arabia, heretics in, 91 ; synods there,
91.
Arians, measures of the Emperor
Constantine against, after their
condemnation at Niczea, 295, 297.
Arianism—whether, before the time
of Arius, his opinions were taught
in Alexandria, 236 ; whether those
opinions were held in the ancient
Church, before Nicwa, 231. (Cf.
Nicwea, Arius.)
Arius, his mental tendencies, 239 ;
his relation to Philo, 240 ; the Arian
and Gnostic Demiurge, 241; time
and place favourable for the propa-
gation of Arianism, 239, 241 ; per-
sonal history of Arius, 241; opposes
his bishop, 243, 245; his doctrine,
243, 249, 251, 254; denies that
Christ had a human rational soul,
238; gains friends and followers,
246, 277; leaves Alexandria, 252 ;
his letters, 252; his 7'halia, 254,
257; returns to Alexandria, 259 ;
is at Niczea, 277 ; what bishops at
Nicsea were on his side, 277 ; he is
condemned and exiled, 295, 297.
Arles, first synod there, 180; was a
Western General Synod, 182; its
acts, 183; its canons, 184; its de-
cision respecting Easter, 321.
Arsinoe, synod at, 117.
Art in churches forbidden by a
Synod of Elvira, 151.
493
494
Asiatic synods on account of Noétus,
92
Athanasius, his youth, 273; his in-
fluence at Niczea, 273, 274, 278.
Audians, 334.
Aurelian, the Roman emperor, de-
cides against Paul of Samosata,
125.
Baptism, to be administered to chil-
dren soon after birth, 97 ; laymen,
not bigamists, may baptize in case
of need, 152 ; baptism of sick, and
in articulo mortis, 142, 152, 187; of
catechumens after two years’ pro-
bation, 155 ; deacons may baptize,
170; women with child to be bap-
tized at once, 226; not to be ad-
ministered hastily, 377; preceded
by laying on of hands, 153; the
cleric to receive no present from
the baptized person, 157; newly
baptized person not to be ordained
priest, 377; whether baptism re-
moves the impedimenta ordinis, 414;
repetition of, forbidden, 477 ; to be
in the name of the three Persons in
the Holy Trinity, 478 ; not merely
into the death of Christ, 478; by
trine immersion, 478.
Baptism of heretics (cf Heretics).
Baptismus clinicorum, 229.
Basle, Synod of, whether an ecu-
menical, 59.
Beryllus of Bostra, 91.
Bestiality, 215 ff.
Betrothed woman, carried off, 211;
may not be married by one who
has seduced her sister, 221 f.
Bigamy, 141 f., 189, 196, 218, 226.
Bishop, may not exchange his diocese
with another, 185, 195, 422, 423;
must not receive a person excom-
municated by another bishop, 159,
193, 196, 386 ; must not officiate in
another bishop’s diocese, 194 ; par-
ticularly, must not ordain, 196;
nor yet ordain one from a strange
diocese for his own, 423; may offer
the sacrifice in a strange diocese,
195; penance and the holy com-
munion in the bishop’s power, 149 ;
only in case of necessity in the
priest’s, 149 ; rule of Nicwa on the
election and consecration of a
bishop, 381; older rule, 195; his-
tory of episcopal elections, 352,
384; no novice to be a bishop,
377; the comprovincial bishops
have the right to appoint a new
INDEX.
bishop at a synod, 383 ; every new
bishop must be ordained by seven
or three or more other bishops, 195,
381 ; the metropolitan has the right
of confirming the election of every
bishop, 381, 383, 385, 396; more
recently this right was transferred
to the Pope, 386 ; a bishop rejected
by a church without any fault of
his own may retain his office of
yet, 217; how schismatical
ishops are to be treated on re-
turning to the Church, 352, 413.
Bithynia, synod there in favour of
the Arians, 258.
Blastus, an Ebionite Quartodeciman,
313.
Body of Christ, without a human soul,
238.
Bostra, synod at, 91.
Britain, its Easter festival, 330.
Business, worldly, forbidden to clerics,
460. .
Ca&SAREA in Palestine, synod there
on account of the Easter contro-
versy, 82; relation of this see to
Jerusalem, 405, 408.
Cxesarea in Cappadocia, recognised as
supreme metropolitan (exarchal)
diocese, 395.
Calicem offerre and benedicere, 427.
Canon = ordo clericorum, 424.
Canones apostolorum (see Apostolic
Canons).
Carthage, primacy of the bishop, 162,
174; synod there under Agrippinus,
86 ; Synod, A.D. 249, 92; a.p. 251,
94; a.D. 252, 96; A.D. 255,.99 5
A.D. 256, 100.
Catechumens, whether two or three ~
classes of, 421; period of, lasted
two years, 155; accelerated bap-
tism of, 142; in case of women —
with child, 226; punishment for
sins, especially carnal sins of, 139,
142, 225; punishment of lapsed,
420; those who sacrificed to idols
not to be ordained after baptism,
211; negligent attendance of, at
divine service, 156; receive laying
on. of hands before baptism, 152,
153.
Cathari = Novatians, 409.
Cathedra prima, 162.
Cecilian of Carthage, 174.
Celibacy, one who becomes a cleric,
being unmarried, must not marry,
except a lector, 435 ; decision of the
Synod of Elvira on celibacy, 150;
INDEX. 495
Synod of Arles recommend it, 197 ;
whether a law on the subject was
given at Nica, 380, 435; punish-
ment for the loss of celibacy by
marriage or impurity, 223 ; deacons
may make a condition at their or-
dination that they shall be allowed
to marry, 210.
Cemeteries, 150 f. ; women must not
spend the night in, 151.
Chalcedon, cecumenical synod there, by
whom convoked, 11 ; who presided,
31; lays its acts before the Pope
for his confirmation, 446.
Chalice may be administered by
deacon, 427.
Charioteers, their reception into the
Church, 164, 187.
Chorepiscopi, 17 f., 230; limitations
of, 211; successors of the seventy
disciples of Christ, 230; presence
at synods, 17 ἢ
Christians, have heathen tenants and
slaves, 154; allow their fruits to be
blessed by Jews, 158 ; may not eat
and associate with Jews, 159; may
not hold the office of flamen, 138 ;
may not adorn heathen festivals,
162; nor be present at heathen
sacrifices, 163; must avoid all in-
tercourse with heathen, 155, 162.
Christology of the Arians, and of
Lucian of Antioch, 238.
Church—no pictures to be in churches,
151; satires not to be placed in,
159 ; in some churches only a dea-
con placed, without a priest, 170; a
been guilty of adultery, 226; nor
one who has emasculated himself,
375; whether one formerly incon-
tinent could be received into the
number of the clergy, 226, 227 ;
clerics who have been guilty of
carnal sins before their ordination
can perform only a part of their
duties, 226, 227 ; priests and bishops
who have been guilty of a serious
sin before, are to be deposed, 378,
414; one who has received clinical
baptism not to become a priest,
227; freedmen whose masters are
heathens, not to be clerics, 171;
whether slaves may be ordained
(see Slaves); one must be thirty
years old before he is ordained
priest, 227 ; no bishop must ordain
one from a strange diocese, either
for his own or for any other
diocese, 196, 423; clerics ordained
by traditores, 191; clerics must
not change their churches, 185,
195, 422, 423; are restrained from
merchandise, 145, 191; and from
being guardians, 84; must receive
no strange or doubtful women into
their houses, 148, 379; must not
live with a wife who has been an
adulteress, 165, 226; punishment
of the clergy for impurity, 145, 223;
treatment of the clergy who became
traditores or lapsi, 191, 201, 202,
415; treatment of schismatical
clerics who return to the Church,
352, 411.
clericnot togo from onechurch to an-
other, 185, 195, 422, 423; negligent
attendance at church punished,
145 ; even in case of catechumens,
156 ; church vessels not to be turned
to private use, 487; church pro-
perty, security of, 214, 475; wax
and oil of church not to be used
by private persons, 487; offerings
of fruit, etc., to the Church, 458-
460 ; bishop may have private pro-
perty, 475.
Colluthus, 250.
Comatus, 165 f.
Commendatitize epistole (see Epis-
tole).
Communicatoriz liters (see Epistole).
Communion, holy, he who does not
partake must not sacrifice, 148 ;
reception of, must be decided by
the bishop, 149; only in cases of
necessity by a priest or deacon, 149 ;
its administration by the bishop,
419; the usurpation of deacons in
Cinerarius, 165 f,
Cirta, synod at, 128.
Clement of Alexandria on the Easter
its administration, 427; it is the
Body of Christ, 430 ; it must be re-
question, 312.
Clerics, who might not become, 146,
149, 169, 414; aneophyte might not,
377, 378; nor one who had been
guilty of mortal sin, 146, 149, 169,
414; if he did, he must be deposed,
414; nor one who had married a
corrupta, 196; or whose wife had
ceived by all who come into church,
461, 462; especially by the clergy,
461 ; as a sacrifice (see Sacrifice).
Comprovincial bishops, their part in
the election of a bishop, 383.
Conciliabulum of the Donatists (A.D.
312), 175.
Concilium universale, or plenarium, 3.
Concilia mixta, 5.
496
Confirmation, right of, belonged to
the metropolitan, 381, 384 ; laying
on of hands in articulo mortis, 152,
187 ; converts to be confirmed, 113,
188 ; one baptized by a deacon to
be confirmed by a bishop, 169.
Constantine the Great, becomes sole
emperor, 259; takes part in the
Arian controversy, 259; regards
the matter at first superficially,
200 : sends Hosius to Alexandria,
260; convokes the Synod of Nicza,
261, 268 ; his zeal for the δρμιοούσιος,
289 ; measures against the Arians
after their condemnation by the
Council of Nicaea, 295, 297.
Constantinople, first synod at, by
whom convoked, 9; who presided,
35 ; second Gcumenical Synod, by
whom convoked, 13; who presided,
31; third Gicumenical Synod there,
by whom convoked, 13 ; fourth, 30.
Constance, Council of, whether cecu-
menical, 58.
Converts, treatment of, 146, 185, 196.
Council (see Syuod).
Corinth, synod there, on account of
the Easter controversy, 83.
Courtezan, heathen, converted, 156.
Cyprian, ὅ., 93 ff.; his argument with
reference to heretical baptism, 113.
Cyril of Alexandria, his Easter table,
329.
DEAcoN, one guilty of mortal sin
could not be a, 169; or must after-
wards discharge the duty of one
in minor orders, 228; deacons in
churches where there are no priests,
170; may baptize there, 170 ; may
do nothing without the knowledge
of the priest, 194; may not offer
the sacrifice, but may offerre in
another sense, 193, 427; may not
administer the Eucharist to priests,
427 ; must receive the holy Eucha-
rist after the bishop and the priests,
427 ; must not sit among the priests,
427 ; no more than seven deacons to
be in one town, 230; may at their
ordination make the condition that
they shall be allowed to marry, 210.
Denunciations, punishment of false,
168, 169, 192.
Diaconi lapsi, how to be treated, 202.
(Compare Clerics. )
Deaconesses, their ordination, 432.
Dead, prayer and sacrifice for the,
92; their souls disquieted by light-
ing of tapers at their graves, 150.
INDEX,
Degrees of relationship, forbidden,
142, 165, 222, 224.
Diocesan synods, 4, 16.
Dionysius the Great, of Alexandria,
99, 103, 107, 117, 119 ; his doctrine
of the Logos, 234 f.; his Easter
canon, 319.
Dionysius of Rome, 234.
Dionysius the Less, his Easter table,
330 ; his collection of canons, 449.
Divorce, 141, 142, 190, 196.
Doctrines, history of, according to
the Hegelian and the Catholic idea,
233.
Donatists, 12S; origin of schism, 172;
decision ot Synod of Arles, 191 f.;
they appeal to the Emperor, 197 ;
further history of the, 198.
Dying, mildness towards the, 419.
EASTER FESTIVAL, synods respecting,
80; decision of Synod of Arles on the,
184, 321 ; Synod of Niczea on, 298,
322; anciently, three ways of cele-
brating Easter : the Ebionitish, the
Johannean, and the ordinary cus-
tom, 299, 306; their differences,
300; home of Quartodecimans, 305;
first Easter controversy between
᾿ς Polycarp and Anicetus, 309; second
Easter controversy between Ebio-
nitish and orthodox Quartodeci-
mans, 310; Blastus, Ebionitish
Quartodeciman at Rome, 313 ; third
Easter controversy between Victur
and Polycrates, 313; astronomical
question arises in third century,
with reference to the equinox, 316;
the Protopaschites, 321; the Easter
canons, 318; even after Nica,
irregularities in the, 328 ; Cyril’s
Easter table, 329 ; that of Victor of
Aquitaine, 329, 445; that of Diony-
sius the Less, 330; British Easter
custom, 330; since Charles the
Great, uniformity in time of, 330 ;
post-Nicene Quartodecimans, 332 ;
Audians, 334; rule of Apostolic
Canons, 460. ᾽
Elvira, Synod of, 1381; was it Nova-
tian ? 134; its canons, 138.
Emasculation, taught by the Vale<
sians, 92; practised by many Chris-
tians, 376; forbidden at Nicwxa,
376.
Ephesus, synod at, on account of the
Easter question, 81 ; CGicumenical
Synod of, 10, 335; metropolitan
(exarchal) rights of the see of, con-
firmed at Nica, 395.
INDEX.
Emperors, presence of, at synods, 25 ;
whether at other than cecumenical
synods, 26 ; presence of their com-
missioners at synods, 26; whether
they presided at synods, 28 ; con-
firmed decrees of synods, 42; the
Donatists appealed to the Em-
peror in ecclesiastical matters, 178,
180.
Epistole communicatoriz and confes-
soriz, 146, 189.
Eucharist (see Holy Communion).
Eunuchs, immoral connection of
women with, 166; whether they
could be clerics, 376, 466; punish-
ment of emasculation for clerics and
laymen, 466. (Cf. Emasculation.)
Eusebians, 285 ; their want of agree-
ment, 288.
Eusebius of Cesarea, 246 ; proposes a
creed at Nicwa, 288 ; his behaviour
at Niceza, 289.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, on the side of
Arius, 245 ; his doctrine, 245 ; his
creed, 286 ; his behaviour at Nicexa,
295 ; subscribes ὁμοιούσιος, instead of
διμιοούσιος, 295.
Excommunicated, restoration of, in
articulo mortis, 149, 419 ; restored,
must enter the fourth grade of peni-
tents, 419; one excommunicated by
his own bishop, not to be restored
by another, unless that bishop has
died, 159, 193, 387; the provincial
synod may inquire whether he has
been rightly excommunicated, 387 ;
intercourse with, forbidden, 462.
Exucontians, 238, 251.
Fastine, rules on, 146; not allowed |
on Sundays and feast-days, 147:
“ Manicheean fasts, 213; fasting in |
Holy Week, 302; fasting in Lent, |
303 ; allowed on only one Saturday
in the year, 484; all Saturdays fast-
days, 147.
Feasts, heathen, supported by Chris-
tians, 162
Fees at baptism, forbidden, 157.
Felicissimus, deacon, 93.
Felix of Aptunga, 174.
Firmilian of Czesarea, 89, 90, 102.
Flamines, punishment of Christians
who took the office of, 139, 160.
Flesh-meat not to be regarded as sin-
ful, 213, 479.
Food, laws of, in ancient Church, 479,
Freedmen, whose masters are heathen,
not to be clerics, 171. ;
497
GAUL, synods in, on account of Easter
question, 81 ; pretended synod in,
on account of Montanus, 83.
Gelasius of Cyzicus, his history of the
Synod of Nicea, 263.
Gladiatorial games, forbidden, and re-
garded as murder, 139.
God, mother of, expression used even
by Alexander of Alexandria, 252.
Graves, lights upon, 150.
Gregory in the Council of Nicsea, 267.
Gregorian calendar, 331.
Guardianship, forbidden to clergy, 92.
Hanps, laying on of, different from
ordination, 352, 411; catechumens
receive, before baptism, 153. (Cf.
Confirmation. )
Heathens, feasts of, not to be shared
in by Christians (cf Communicatio
in sacris).
Heathenism, some Christians of early
times stood in close relation with,
138, 154, 160.
Heraclea, recognised as metropolitan
see of Thrace, 395.
Heretical baptism, controversy re-
specting, in Asia Minor, 87; in
Africa, 98; synods on account of,
87, 98; valid in ancient Church,
104; Tertullian’s view on, 106;
those who have received, on re-
turning to the Church, to undergo
the two sacraments of penance and
confirmation, 112; the ordinance
of the Council of Arles on, 188 ; de-
cision of the Council of Nica on,
430; Apostolical Canons pronounced
invalid, 485.
Heretical ordination, invalid, 485.
Hierapolis, synod at, 78.
Hippolytus, on paschal controversy,
318; his Easter canon, 319.
Hosius, presides at first Gicumenical
Synod at Nica, 39, 260, 281.
Hypostasis, frequently identified in
ancient times with Substance and
Ousia, and even at Nicwa, 295.
IconiIum, synod at, 89.
Idols, images of, he who breaks them
and perishes in consequence, not to
be considered a martyr, 163 ; that
which is offered in sacrifice to, not
to be received by Christians, 154 ;
Christians not to be present at,
sacrifices, 163.
Incest with a step-daughter, 165.
Infant baptism, 97.
Tnfanticide, 164, 167, 220.
QI
498
Informers, punished, 168; against
the clergy, 169, 192.
JacoB (orJames), Bishop of Nisibis, 272.
Jerusalem, destruction of, 404; settle-
ment of Christians in, 405; rebuild-
ing of Allia, 405; rights of the
Church of, declared at Nicza, 404 ;
relation of the see of, to Czsarea,
405, 407 ; receives a portion of the
patriarchate of Antioch, and be-
comes itself a patriarchal see, 408 ;
synod at, about Easter, 82.
Jews, bless fruits in Spain, 158; Chris-
tians to have no intercourse with,
not to eat with, 159. (Cf. Communi-
catio in sacris. )
Judith, whether the book of, was
declared canonical at Nicxa, 371.
Laity at councils, 18, 24.
Lambesitanum, Concilium, 90.
Laodicea, Easter controversy at, 310.
Lapsi, treatment of, 93, 96, 138;
synods respecting, ib. ; who yielded
to physical constraint, 202, 209 ;
different grades of, 203, 210; treat-
ment of those who fell under Lici-
nius, 416; of those who entered
military service under Licinius,
417; punishment of catechumens
who became lapsi, 420; how to
treat fallen priests, 201; punish-
ment of traditores, 191; restoration
of lapsi in articulo mortis, 149, 419 ;
when restored, to enter the fourth
grade of penitents, 420.
Lateran Synod, the fifth, was it
cecumenical ? 62.
Lenocinium, punishment of, 142.
Lent, fasting in, different in different
parts of the ancient Church, 303 ;
practice of Quartodecimans, 302 ;
the whole of Lent a fast, 485.
Leontius Castratus, Bishop of Antioch,
376.
Letters, of women, 171; of peace, 146,
189. (Cf. Epistole.)
Libellus Synodicus, 78.
Licinius, Emperor, 258; conquered,
259 ; death of, 277 ; his persecution
of Christians, 416.
Lights on graves forbidden, 150.
Literee Communicatoriz (cf. Epistole).
Λόγος ἐνδιάθεσος aNd σπροφορικὸς, 232,
Logos, doctrine of (¢f. Son of God).
Lucian, martyr and priest at Antioch,
his doctrine, 237 ; his creed, 238.
MAGISTRATES (cf. Offices).
INDEX.
Marcellinus, Bishop of Rome, 127.
Marinus, Bishop of Arles, 178.
Marriage, with heathens, Jews, here-
tics, 144, 190; during the lifetime
of first wife, forbidden, 141, 142,
189, 196 ; a woman who has sinned
with one, not to marry another,
143 ; one who has seduced the sister
of his betrothed, not to marry the
latter, 222 ; marriage with a sister-
in-law, a brother-in-law, and a
step-daughter, forbidden, 164, 165,
224, 465; second marriage, 218;
clerics not to feast with those who
marry a second time, 226; those
who marry more than twice to be
punished, 225; punishment of a
second marriage, 218, 226; what
kind of celibacy has value, and
what is sinful, 479 ; a cleric who ab-
stains from matrimony because he
thinks it impure, to be deposed, 479.
Maternus, Bishop of Coln, 178, 181.
Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, 130;
origin of Meletian schism, 341 ; de-
cision of Nicene Council on this
subject, 353; later history of Me-
letians, 354.
Melito, Bishop of Sardes, 310.
Merchandise, relation of clergy to, 145.
Mesopotamia, pretended synod in, 126.
Metropolitan rights, in Africa, 162 ;
in general, and the relation of the
ecclesiastical to the civil division of
provinces, 381 (cf. Provinces) ; the
three provisions of the metropolitan
arrangement confirmed at Nicza,
385, 387 ; the metropolitan has the
right of confirming the election of
bishops, 396; even the Patriarch
cannot withdraw this right from the
metropolitan, 396 ; afterwards this
right was transferred tothe Pope, 386.
Military service (cf. Service in War).
Montanism, synods on account of, 77,
89, 111.
Murder, ecclesiastical punishment of,
140, 220; murder and adultery con-
nected, 164, 220.
NARBONNE, synod at, 116.
Neoceesarea, synod at, 222.
Nepos, Egyptian bishop and Millen-
arian, 117.
Nicea, first £cumenical Synod
at, by whom convoked, 91, 261,
268; who presided, 36, 281; size
and position of the city of, 270;
genuine and pretended acts of the
first Synod of, 262; authorities for
INDEX,
the history of the Synod of, 264 ;
number of members of Synod, 270 ;
Latins present at, 271; most pro-
minent members, 271; uneducated
members, 272; date of the Synod,
274, 439 ; disputations at the Synod,
277 ; whether heathen philosophers
were present at the Synod, 278 ;
arrival of the Emperor, and solemn
opening of the Synod, 279 ; mutual
accusations of bishops, 282 ; manner
of deliberation, 282; debates with
the Eusebians, 285; on ἐξοοσίας
and ὁμοούσιος, 287; Eusebius of
Cesarea proposes a creed, 288;
his behaviour at the Synod, 288 ;
Nicene Creed, 293; who did and
did not subscribe, 295; subscrip-
tions in the Acts, 296 ; punishment
of Arius, 295, 297; decision of
Easter question, 298 ; on the Me-
letians, 341; number of Nicene
canons, 355 ; canons of Sardica often
interchanged with those of Nicea,
356 ; Arabic canons of Nicza, 359 ;
how the opinion arose that the
Synod of Nicza published more
than twenty canons, 367; more
pretended canons of Nica, 369 ;—
contents of Nicene canons, 375 : (1.)
In reference to eunuchs, 375; (2.)
That no novice is to be ordained,
377 ;_ (3.) Against Syneisacti, 379 ;
(4.) On the election and consecra-
tion of bishops, 381; (5.) On
excommunication and _ provincial
synods, 386; (6.) On the patri-
archates, 389 ; (7.) On the rights of
Jerusalem to honour, 404; (8.) On
the Novatians, 409; (9, 10.) On
unworthy clerics, 414 ; (11-14.) On
penance, 416; (15, 16.) Change of
positions, 422 ; (17.) Against usury,
424; (18.) Against the usurpation
of deacons, 426; (19.) On the fol-
lowers of Paul of Samosata and
heretical baptism, 430; (20.) On
standing in prayer, 434 ;—whether
the sixth Nicene canon says any-
thing on the Papacy, 394, 396;
certainly in its Latin form, 401 ;
whether this notion was rejected
by the fourth Gicumenical Synod,
401 ; end of the Council of Nicza,
439 ; confirmation by Emperor, 440;
distinction of the Council, 440;
whether it asked for the confirma-
tion of the Pope, 442, 445 ; spurious
documents referring to the Nicene
Council, 441; newly discovered
499
Coptic documents, 294, 379, 382,
388, 390.
Nicxea, second Cicumenical Synod of,
by whom convoked, 14; who pre-
sided at, 30.
Nicolas, S., at the Synod of Nica,
272.
Nicomedia, pretended synod at, 260.
Night, prayer at, in the cemeteries,
151 ; women excluded from, 151.
Noetus, 92.
Novatian schism, origin of, 93;
synods upon, 93; ordinance of
Nicene Synod respecting, 410.
OFFIcE, ecclesiastical, not to be ex-
changed with another, 185, 195,
196, 422, 423.
Offices, public, forbidden to Chris-
tians, 139, 160, 161; afterwards
allowed, 187.
“Ομοιούσιος, 295.
“Ομοούσιος, rejected by the Synod of
Antioch of a.p. 269, 124; Diony-
sius, Bishop of Alexandria, on this
expression, 236; Arius rejects it,
245 ; debates on it at Nicawa, 285 ;
Zeal of the Emperor for it, 289; Euse-
bius of Czesarea wishes to avoid it,
288 ; Synod of Niczea adopts it into
its creed, 287; some friends of
Arius write ὁμοιούσιος for, 295 ; ridi-
culed by the partisans of Arius, 295.
Ordination, whether that admini-
stered by a schismatical cleric must
be repeated, 352, 411; no bishop
may ordain a strange cleric for his
diocese, 423; nor any cleric in a
strange diocese, 196; chorepiscopi
and town priests not to ordain,
212 ; whether baptism removes the
impedimenta ordinis, 414. (Cf.
Clerics. )
Oriental Synod, on account of Cerdo,
83; pretended, on account of
Manes, 126.
Origen, synods on account of, 87-
gains over Beryllus of Bostra, 91;
argues with the Hypnopsychites,
91; defective in his doctrine of the
Logos, 232.
Osrhoéne, synod on account of the
Easter festival, 81, 82.
Οὐσία (cf. ὑπόστασις).
PADERASTIANS, ποῦ toreceive the holy
communion even in articulo mortis,
167.
Palestine, synod in, on account of
Easter feast, 80, 82.
500
Pantomimi, reception of, into the
Church, 164, 187.
Paphnutius, 272, 284, 435.
Pascha, idea of, 307; πάσχα ἀναστά-
σιμον and σταυρώσιμον, 308. (Cf.
Easter. ) .
Patriarchal rites, confirmed at Nica,
389 ; when the title of Patriarch
assumed, 391; which were the
patriarchal or supreme metropoli-
tan sees, 395; in what the patri-
archal rights consisted, 393; dif-
ferent in different places, 394, 400;
when Jerusalem became a_patyri-
archate, 408 ; Roman patriarchate
embraces the whole West, 397;
in some parts of the West, Rome
has not full patriarchal rights, 401.
Paul of Samosata, 118, 237 ; baptism
of his followers invalid, 430; how
to deal with the clergy of his party
when they return tothe Church, 430.
Penance, only one, 411; ot the lapsi,
138 (cf. Lapsi); on account of
murder, etc., 139; on account of
impurity, bigamy, etc., 140f., 149,
164-168, 170; for prostitution of
children, 142 ; for intercourse with
heathenism, 154, 162; power of
penance in hands of bishop, only
in case of necessity allowed to priest
or deacon, 149.
Pentecost, during, people are to stand
in prayer, 434; feast of, 155.
Pergamum, pretended synod at, 83.
Petavius, defence of, 233.
Peter of Alexandria, his doctrine of
the Logos, 237.
Pictures, forbidden in churches, 151.
Pierius, his doctrine of the Logos, 236.
Pisa, synod at, whether cecumenical,
5
Pistus, Arian Bishop of Alexandria,
940.
Plays, scenic, 139, 164, 187.
Polycarp, 8., on Easter festival, 309.
Pontus, synod at, 81, 82.
Pope, convokes cecumenical councils,
6 ; share of, in first eight cecumeni-
cal councils, 8; all later cecumeni-
cal synods undeniably convoked by
the Popes, 8, 15; Pope, or his
legates, preside at cecumenical
synods, 27; actually presided at
most ancient cecumenical synods,
25; confirmation of decisions of
councils belongs to the Pope, 42,
446 ; confirmed, in fact, the deci-
sions of first and fourth Gicumenical
Synods, 425; relation of Pope to
INDEX.
cecumenical synod, 48; whether
the Synod of Nicza ordained any-
thing with reference to the primacy
of the Church, 394, 396, 401 ; prima
sedes non judicatur a quoquam, 128 ;
no universal ordinances promulgated
without consent of Pope, 8, 446.
Possessed, 148, 151.
Prayer, at night, in cemeteries, 150 ;
to be offered standing on Sundays
and at Pentecost, 434.
Priests, country, their functions, 229 ;
when they may minister in towns,
229; their celibacy (cf. Celibacy) ;
not to ordain in towns, 212; must
be respected by other clerics, 481 ;
must maintain poor clerics, 481 ;
negligent priests to be punished,
481 ; must hold no separatist ser-
vice, 469. (Cf. Clerics.)
Priests, heathen, Christians acting the
part of, 138.
Primacy (¢f. Pope) ; ecclesiastical, in
Africa, 162, 174.
Privatus, a heretic, 90, 97.
Prostitution, ecclesiastical, punish-
ment of, 143.
Protopaschites, 321.
Provincial divisions, origin and rela-
tion to civil, 381; Nicene Council
decides that the ecclesiastical pro-
vince shall ordinarily be same as
civil, 382 ; three subjects of provin-
cial arrangements, 384 ; division of
provinces in Africa and Spain, 162 ;
in Egypt, 389.
Provincial Synods, to be held twice a
year, 387.
QUARTODECIMANS (cf. Easter).
Raptus (cf. Virgins).
jtegiones suburbicarix, 398.
Robber-Synod, 8, 42.
Rome, the patriarchal rights of this
see confirmed at Niczea, 394; patri-
archate of, extends over the whole
West, 397; in some provinces of the
West, Rome has not full patriarchal
rights, 401 (cf. Pope); pretended
synods at Rome in second century,
83 ; on account of Origen, 88 ; synod
at Rome (A.D. 251), 95; (about A.D.
260), 118; (A.D. 331), 179.
SABELLIvS, 118.
Sabinus of Heraclea, 272.
Sacrifice, Christian worship is a, 92,
201, 227, 429; one who does not com-
municate, not to make offerings, 148.
INDEX.
Sacrifices, heathen, Christians not to
be spectators of, 163.
Sardica, Synod of, whether ecume-
nical, 55.
Satires not to be placed in churches,
159.
Saturday, fast on, 147 ; only one Sa-
turday in year to be a fast-day, 454.
Secundus, Arian bishop, exiled, 295.
Sedes prima, in Africa and Spain=
metropolitan see, 162.
Seleucia, pretended synod at, 85.
Senex, in Africa = metropolitan, 174.
Service, divine, not to be left before
the end ; all present at, to take part
in prayer and in holy communion,
461; private, in conventicles, for-
bidden, 469.
Service in war, obligation to, 185 ;
those who served under Licinius
punished, 417; forbidden to the
higher clergy, 490.
Sicily, pretended synod in, 83.
Sick, may be baptized and confirmed
before the regular time, 142, 187.
Simony, fees regarded as, 157 ; no one
by, to become bishop, 469.
Sin, one guilty of mortal, not to be
made deacon, 169. (Cf Clergy,
Penance, Lapsi.)
Sins of thought, not punished by the
Church, 225.
Sinuessa, pretended synod at, 127.
Slaves, treatment of, and care of
Church for, 139 ; Christian masters
not to provide an idolatrous service
for heathen slaves, 154; slaves used
for indulgence of lust, 166 ; not to
be ordained without consent of mas-
ters, 490.
Son of God, the pre-Arian doctrine
of the Son of God, 231; that of
Origen, 232, 239; that of Dionysius
of Alexandria, 234 ; of Dionysius of
Rome, 234 ; of Theognostus, Pierius,
and Peter of Alexandria, 236; of
Lucian of Antioch, 237 ; of Arius,
239, 249, 251, 253; of Eusebius of
Nicomedia, 245 ; the orthodox doc-
trine of the Logos of Bishop Alex-
ander of Alexandria, 251; how
Arius misrepresents the orthodox
doctrine, 252; Arius teaches that
the Son is ἀνόμοιος to the Father,
257; the Eusebians declare their
doctrine of the Logos at Nica,
286; the Fathers of Nicea com-
pelled to express themselves care-
fully, 287 ; they select the ὁμοούσιος,
287 ; doctrine of the Logos of Euse- |
501
bius of Cesarea, 288; the Nicene
doctrine, 289.
Spadones (cf. Eunuchs).
Spain, metropolitan divisions in, 162.
Spiridion, Bishop of Cyprus, mem-
jd of the Synod of Nicza, 272,
Standing, on Sunday, in prayer, 434.
State, office of, under what condi-
tions to be held by a Christian,
187.
Stephen, Pope, his part in controversy
respecting heretical baptism, 99 ;
whether he considered all heretical
baptism as valid, 108.
Step-daughter, marriage with, forbid-
den, 165.
Strike, clergy not to, 468.
Subintroducté mulieres, 148, 219, 379 ;
Leontius emasculates himself, in
order to live with a subintroducta,
376; wider meaning of, 380.
Subordinationism, 234, 239.
Suburbicariz regiones and ecclesiz,
398.
Superpositio, 148.
Superstition, with tapers, 150; Chris-
tians allowing their fruits to be
blessed by Jews, 158.
Synnada, synod at, 90.
Synod, idea and origin of, 1 ; whether
a divine or human institution—their
authority, 1, 2; most ancient synods,
2,77; different kinds of synods, 2 ;
idea of an cecumenical synod, 3;
reasons for holding cecumenical
synods, 5; who convokes synods,
6; who convoked, in fact, the first
eight cecumenical synods, 8; who
the later, 8, 15 ; members of synods,
16; chorepiscopt as members, 17 ;
laity at synods, 18, 24, 25; women
at synods, 24; emperors and kings
and their commissaries at synods,
25; whether they have a right to
be present at other than cecumenical
synods, 26; doctors, abbots, titular
bishops, etc., at synods, 21, 64;
who has a vote at synods, 18, 19,
23; who subscribes the acts, 20,
25; secretaries and notaries of
synods, 21; presidency of synods,
27; who presided at the first eight
cecumenical synods, 28; who pre-
sided at the Robber-Synod, 42;
confirmation of decrees of synods
by the Emperor, 42, 440; by the
Pope, 44, 442, 446; relation of
Pope to cecumenical synod, 49; in-
fallibility of the ecumenical syuod,
502
52; appeal from Pope to cecume-
nical synod, 54; number of cecu-
menical synods, 54; uncontested and
contested cecumenical synods, 55 ;
order of precedence at synods, 64 ;
solemnities at the opening of a
synod, 65; manner of voting at
synods, 66; manner of publication
of decrees of synod, 67; collec-
tions of councils, 67 ; works on the
history of synods, 67; provincial
synods to be held twice a year,
387.
Synodicus, libellus, 78.
Synodus ἐνδημοῦσα, 4.
TAPERS, not to be lighted at graves,
150.
Taverns, clergy not to frequent, 480.
Tertullian, on heretical baptism, 106.
Theatre (sce Plays).
Theft of clergy, how punished, 467.
Theodotus the tanner, 80.
Theognis of Nicza, 295, 297.
Theognostus, his doctrine of the
Logos, 236.
Theonas, Arian bishop, 295.
Traditores, 191; clerical, to be de-
posed, 191 ; ordination by, whether
valid, 191.
Travellers, must have letters of peace,
463, 471; without such, to be
relieved, but not received into
communion, 471 ; support of, from
church property, 475.
Trullanum, 56.
UncHASTITY, punishment of, 140,
141 ; of virgins dedicated to God,
143, 218 ; of virgins in the world,
143; of young people, 149, 218 ; of
widows, 167 ; of clerics, 145, 223,
467 ; of women with slaves, 165;
with eunuchs, 166; with beasts,
215; one guilty of unchastity not
to be ordained, 149, 228 ; forgive-
ness of, after baptism, 149; pun-
ishment of parents who prostitute
INDEX.
their daughters, 142; unchastity
coupled with infanticide, 220.
Ὑπόστασις, used in same sense as
Substance or Essence at Nicea,
295.
Usury, forbidden, 145, 190, 424, 476.
VALESIANS, heretics, 92.
Viaticum, 419.
Victor, Pope, his part in the Easter
controversy, 313.
Victorius of Aquitaine, his Easter
cycle, 330, 443.
Victorius, Roman heretic, in the third
century, 443.
Vienne, the Synod of, in 1311, was it
cecumenical? 56.
Vigils in cemeteries, 150; forbidden
to women, 151.
Virgins, punishment of the errors of,
143 ; of both sexes, 144, 149, 218;
one who has taken a vow of vir-
ginity not to marry, 218 ; rape of,
211.
Virginity, what kind of value, and
what sinful, 479.
WEAPONS, use of, out of war, for-
bidden, 185.
Widows, punishment of, for carnal
sins, 167.
Wine, not sinful, 479.
Withcraft, murder through, 140; ec-
clesiastical punishment of, 221.
Witnesses, punishment of false, 168.
Women, strange, in the houses of
clerics, 148; at synods, 24; not to
spend the night in cemeteries, 151 ;
not to receive or send letters, 171 ;
not to keep slaves for pleasure,
165; with child to be baptized,
226.
Zoeca edits Coptic fragments re-
ferring to the Council of Nicza,
265.
Zosimus, Pope, takes the canons of
Sardica for Nicene, 356.
T. & T. CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS.
PROFESSOR SCHAFF’S CHURCH HISTORY.
History of the Christian Church. By the late Pau
Scuarr, D.D., LL.D., Professor in the Union Theological Seminary,
New York.
Six ‘Divisions’ (in Two Volumes each, 21s.) of this great work are now ready.
Each Division covers a separate and distinct epoch, and is complete in itself.
1. APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 1-100. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s.
2. ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 100-325. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s.
3 NICENE AND POST-NICENE CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 325-600. Two Vols. Ex. demy
8vo, price 21s.
4, MEDIZVAL CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 590-1073. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s.
δ, THE GERMAN REFORMATION. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s.
6. THE SWISS REFORMATION. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s.
‘Dr. Schaff’s ‘History of the Christian Church” is the most valuable contribution to Ecclesias-
tical History that has ever been published in this country. When completed it will have no rival
in point of comprehensiveness, and in presenting the results of the most advanced scholarship
and the latest discoveries. Each Division covers a separate and distinct epoch, and is complete in
itself.’
‘No student, and indeed no critic, can with fairness overlook a work like the present,
written with such evident candour, and, at the same time, with so thorough a knowledge
of the sources of early Christian history.’—Scotsman.
‘No feature of the book has struck us more than the way in which it combines learned
accuracy with popular writing. Students can rely on the volume, and will find what
they want init... . The reader is all along in contact with a lively, various, progress-
ive story, full of interest and of movement.’—Principal Ropertr Rainy, D.D.
The Life of Philip Schaff. In part Autobiographical. By Pro-
fessor D. 8. Scnarr, D.D. With Portraits, 8vo, price 10s. 6d.
‘ One of the breeziest, most delightful, and most profitable books we have read for a
long time.’—British Weekly.
BISHOP HEFELE’S COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.
A History of the Councils of the Church. From the
Original Documents. By the Right Rev. C. J. πεῖ, D.D.,
Bishop of Rottenburg. Now complete, in Five Volumes, demy
8vo, price 12s. each. Vol. I. To a.v. 325. Vol. II. a.v. 326 to
429, Vol. III. a.v. 431 to 451. Vol. IV. a.p. 451 to 680. Vol.
V., completing the series, a.p. 626 to close of Second Council of
Nica, 787. With Appendix and Indices.
‘To all who have the slightest pretension to the name of scientific theologians it
must afford the greatest satisfaction to receive a new volume of Bishop Hefele’s
standard work on the Councils. It is quite unnecessary to commend this great and
learned book. No one would think of studying the subject of the Councils without
consulting it.’—Church Bells.
ΓΑ ee and fair compendium, put in a most accessible and intelligent form.’—
van,
T. & T. CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS,
Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees,
1869-1887. By Icnaz von DétuincEer. Authorised Transla-
tion. In crown 8vo, price 3s. θα, .
Dr. ALFRED PLUMMER says: ‘This intensely interesting collection of Declarations
and Letters gives us in a short compass the main historical facts which Dr. Déllinger
considered to be absolutely fatal to the truth of the dogma respecting the infallibility of
the Pope, and the reasons which for nineteen years prevented him from “Ὁ submitting ”
even to the Pope with the whole of the Roman episcopate at his back. . . . Indispens-
able to every one who would have an intelligent grasp of the infallibility question.’
Hippolytus and Callistus; or, The Church of Rome in the
Hirst Half of the Third Century. By Ian. von Déruinemr.
Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Appendices, by ALFRED
Piummer, D.D. One Vol. 8vo, price 6s. net. ;
‘ We are impressed with profound respect for the learning and ingenuity displayed in
this work. ‘The book deserves perusal by all students of ecclesiastical history. It
clears up many points hitherto obscure, and reveals features in the Roman Church at
the beginning of the third century which are highly instructive.’—A theneum.
Christian Charity in the Ancient Church. By G.
Un.yorn, D.D. In crown 8vo, price 6s,
‘The facts are surprising, many of them fresh, and the truths to be deduced are far
more powerful as weapons for warring against infidelity than scores of lectures or
bushels of tracts.’—Ecclesiastical Gazette.
Handbook of Church History: From the Reformation. By
Professor J. H. Kurrz, D.D. In demy 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
‘A work executed with great diligence and care, exhibiting an accurate collection of
facts, and a succinct though full account of the history and progress of the Church, both
external and internal. . . . The work is distinguished for the moderation and charity of
its expressions, and for a spirit which is truly Christian.’-—Hnglish Churchman,
WORKS BY PROFESSOR W. CLARK, D.D., LL.D., TORONTO.
The Paraclete. A Series of Discourses on the Person and Work
of the Holy Spirit. In crown 8vo, price 3s. 6d.
‘ This is the simplest and best introduction to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the
Iinglish language. Professor Clark writes with simplicity and point, and the little
book may be read with pleasure by the very beginner, and yet it leads one well into
the subject.’—LHapository Times.
Witnesses to Christ. A Contribution to Christian Apologetics.
In crown 8vo, price 4s.
The Anglican Reformation. (‘ Eras of the Christian Church.’)
In post 8vo, price 6s.
‘Not only is the book marked by great fairness of dealing, and thoroughness of
purpose, but it has (what not every historical work possesses) a distinction of Style
and an effectiveness of setting which it is a pleasure to notice.’— Rock.
Pascal and the Port Royalists. (‘The World’s Epoch-Makers’
Series. )
‘One of the most interesting volumes in “The World’s Epoch-Makers” Series
giving a vivid account of Pascal’s career, an acute analysis of his writings, and a
careful appreciation of his character and work.’—Critical Review.
T: & T, CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS.
CONCORDANCE TO THE GREEK TESTAMENT. MOULTON-GEDEN.
A Concordance to the Greek Testament: According to the
Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and the English Revisers.
Edited by W. F. Moutron, D.D., and A.§.Grprn, M.A. In crown
- 4to (pp. 1040). Szconp Epirion, Revised throughout. Price 26s.
net; or in half-morocco, price 818, 6d. net. ᾿
*.* /t will be generally allowed that a new Concordance to the Greek Testament is much needed
in the interests of sacred scholarship. This work adopts a new principle, and aims at providing
a full and complete Concordance to the text of the Greek Testament as it is set forth in the
editions of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf (8th), and the English Revisers. The first-named
fas throughout been taken as the standard, and the marginal readings have been included. Thus
the student with any one of these three editions in his hands will find himself in possession of α
complete Concordance to the actual text on which he is engaged. While the method employed, it
may fairly be claimed, precludes the omission of any word or phrase which, by even a remote
probability, might be regarded as forming part of the true text of the New Testament, on the
other hand passages, disappear as to the spuriousness of which there is practical unanimity
among scholars.
Professor W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Oxford, writes: ‘There can be no question as to the
value of the new ‘‘Concordance.” It is the only scientific Concordance to the Greek Testament,
and the only one that can be safely used for scientific purposes.’
‘lt would be difficult to overpra‘se this invaluable addition to biblical study. ... For alt
English students of the Greek Testa-nent this great work is indispensable.’—BRiTIsH WEEKLY.
Prospectus, with Specimen Page, free on application,
The Historical New Testament: Being the Literature of the
New Testament arranged in the order of its Literary Growth and
according to the Dates of the Documents. A New Translation,
Edited, with Prolegomena, Historical Tables, Critical Notes, and an
Appendix, by James Morrarr, D.D, Second Edition. One large
8vo Volume, price 16s,
‘The most important book on the credentials of Christianity that has appeared in
this country for a long time, It is a work of extraordinary learning, labour, and
ability.’—British Weekly.
The Christ of History and of Experience. Being the
‘Kerr Lectures’ for 1897. By Rev. Davin W. Forrest, D.D.,
Edinburgh. In post 8vo, New and Cheaper Edition, price 6s.
‘ An exceedingly able treatment of a great and important subject,’—The late Professor
CALDERWOOD.
‘An eminently stimulating and improving book.’—Glasgow Herald.
* Displays marked ability, and possesses unusual interest.’— Manchester Guardian.
*, . . It is scarcely necessary, however, to specify particular passages in a book
which throughout exhibits literary and theological powers of a high order, and which
abounds in observations and criticisms which could only have been penned by a
masculine and fearless, but reverent, thinker.’—Literature.
The Miracles of Unbelief. By Rev. Frank Batnarp, M.A.,
B.Sc., London. Fourth Edition, Revised throughout. Post 8vo, 6s.
*,” By special request, Messrs. Clark have issued Chapter VIII., entitled,
4 stn Christ: His Origin and Character,’ in separate form, with cover, price
. net.
"ὁ Written by an expert in science as well as theology, a fair-minded man who faces
religious difficulties, not ignores them, and one who knows how to reason out his case
like an accomplished advocate, without pressing it like an unscrupulous one. Mr.
Ballard has rendered valuable service to the cause of Christian truth, and given us an
excellent and useful book, deserving a large circulation.’—Professor W. T, Dayison
in the Methodist Recorder, F
‘It is a perfect mine of quotation for men with little time for study, who are called,
as modern ministers are, to be not only visitors and workers but also preachers and
teachers.’—Guardian, ites cab
*
T. & T. CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS,
Eras of the Christian Church.
ἜΡΙΤΕΡ By Joun Furroy, D.D., LL.D.
ComPLETE 1n TEN VOLUMES. Prick 6s. EACH; oR £2, 5s. NET, PER SET.
The Guardian says : ‘These volumes certainly must be said to answer their descrip-
tions admirably. The reader will find in them studies in the history of the Church in
a series of short chapters which are always interesting and often very picturesque.’
‘These ‘‘ Eras” are histories that will be enjoyably read and easily remembered.’—
Literary World.
The Age of Hildebrand. By Professor M. R. Vincent, D.D.
The Great Western Schism. By Cuinron Locxz, D.D.
The Age of the Crusades. By Jamus M. Luptow, D.D.
The Ecumenical Councils. By Professor W. P. Du Boss, D.D.
The Age of the Renascence. By Henry Van Dyxz, D.D.
and Paut Van Dykg.
The Anglican Reformation. By Professor W. R. Cuarg,
LL.D., D.C.L., Trinity College, Toronto. (Editor and Translator
of Bishop Hefele’s Councils of the Church.) , :
The Age of Charlemagne. By Professor Cuarzes L. WELL.
The Post-Apostolic Age. By Lucius Warrrman, D.D.
The Apostolic Age. By Prof. J. Vernon Bartuzt, M.A., Oxford.
The Protestant Reformation. By Professor W. Wa.xker,
Ph.D., D.D., Hartford.
The Essence of Christianity: A Study in the History of
Definition. By Professor W. Apams Brown, Ph.D., D.D., Union
Theological Seminary, New York. Just published, post 8vo, 6s. net.
‘A remarkable book. It is remarkable for its thoroughness and its lucidity. The
subject is one of urgent importance. Dr. Brown sees that the very existence of
Christianity depends on an understandingi—and a reliable understanding — of its
essence. And he has given himself to this difficult task without reserve... . There
is no book of recent issue in America that is more likely to appeal to the English
student.’—Dr, HastinGs in the Expository Times.
The Apostles’ Creed: Its Origin, Purpose, and Historical Inter-
pretation. By Professor A. C. McGirrrrt, D.D., Author of ‘The
Apostolic Age’ (International Theological ye rien Post 8vo,
price 4s. net.
‘ Perhaps the easiest, introduction to the Creeds which we possess, and yet it has
to be reckoned with, answered, or accepted, by the ripest creedal scholar. ‘Expository
Times
‘ The whole is a work exhaustive, lucid, convincing.’— Hibbert Jounral.
>
T. & T. CLARK’s PUBLICATIONS,
The World's Epoch=Makers.
EpITED BY OLIPHANT Smeaton, M.A,
NEW SERIES. In Neat Crown 8vo VouumeEs. PRICE 88. EACH.
‘An excellent series of biographical studies.’—Athenxum.
‘We advise our readers to keep a watch on this most able series.
It promises
to be a distinct success. The volumes before us are the most satisfactory books
of the sort we have ever read.’—Methodist Times.
The following Volumes have now been issued :—
Cranmer and the English Reforma-
tion. By A. D. Innes, M.A.
Wesley and Methodism. iy F. J.
SNELL, M.A.
Luther and the German Reformation.
By Principal T. M. Lixpsay, D.D.
Buddha and Buddhism. By Arruur
LILLIE,
William Herschel and his Work.
By James Srmr, M.A.
Francis and Dominic.
J. HeRKxiEss, D.D
Savonarola. By G. M‘Harpy, D.D.
Anselm and his Work. By Rev. A.
C. Wetcu, B.D.
Muhammad and his Power. By P.
Der Lacy Jounstong, M.A. (Oxon.).
Origen and Greek Patristic Theology.
By Rev. W. FarrwEaTHER, M.A.
The Medici and the Italian Renais-
Sance. By OLIPHANT SMEATON,
M.A., Edinburgh.
By Professor
Plato. By Professor D. G. RircHte,
M.A., LL.D., University of St.
Andrews, ]
Pascal and the Port Royalists. By
Professor W. CLARK, LL.D., D.C.L.,
Trinity College, Toronto. |
Euclid. By Emeritus Professor THomas
Smiru, D.D., LL.D.
Hegel and Hegelianism. By Pro-
fessor R. Mackinrosu, D.D., Lanca-
shire Independent College, Man-
chester.
Hume and his Influence on Philo-
sophy and Theology. By Professor
J. Orr, D.D., Glasgow.
Rousseau and Naturalism in Life
and Thought. By Professor W. H.
Hupson, M.A., Chicago University.
Descartes, Spinoza, and the New
Philosophy. By ProfessorJ. lvEracuH,
D.D., Aberdeen. ;
The following have also been arranged for :—
Socrates. By Rev. J. T. Forzss,
M.A., Glasgow.
Marcus Aurelius and the Later Stoics.
By F. W. Bussett, D.D., Vice-
Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford.
[ln the Press.
Augustine and Latin Patristic Theo-
logy. By Professor B. Β. WARFIELD,
D.D., Princeton.
Scotus Erigena and his Epoch. By
Professor R. Latra, Ph.D., D.Sc.,
University of Aberdeen.
Wyclif and the Lollards.
‘J. C. Carrick,: B.D.
The Two Bacons and Experimental
Science. Bykev. W.J.Couprr, M.A.
By Rev.
Calvin and the Reformed Theology.
By Principal Satmonp, D.D., U.F.U.
College, Aberdeen.
Lessing and the New Humanism.
By Rey. A. P. Davipson, M.A.
Kant and his Philosophical Revolu-
tion. By Professor R. M. WENLEY,
D.Se., Ph.D., University of Michi-
gan.
Schleiermacher and the Rejuven-
‘escence of Theology. By Professor
A. Martin, D.D., New | College,
Edinburgh. om
Newman and his Influence. By
C. SAROLEA, Ph.D., Litt. Doc., Uni
versity of Edinburgh... ©. Δ}
T. & T. CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS.
-
The Testament of Our Lord. Translated into English from
the Syriac, with Introduction and Notes, by James Cooprr, D.D.,
Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Glasgow University ; and A.
J. Maciean, M.A., F.R.G.S., Principal of the Theological College
of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. 8vo, 9s.
‘In making the work known, the Editor has done considerable service to the study
both of ecclesiastical history and of liturgy. 10 is a real service, which deserves the
gratitude of scholars.’—The Guardian.
The Testament possesses the special interest of being the production of the very
period when the great transition in the Church's fortunes, from Imperial persecution to
‘Imperial favour, was leading to the inevitable transformation of her buildings and her
services to suit her altered circumstances. .... The Testament reflects this state of
things asa mirror, It vibrates, moreover, with the pulsation of the great controversies
through which the Church was passing. The volume is thus far more than a mere
antiquarian curiosity. It had a message to its own time; it has a message to all time,
and very distinctly to the time now present. The Testament is also a veritable mine at
once of devotional expression and liturgical lore.
The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. With a
Critical Introduction. By Rev. Gzorce Miuuiean, B.D. In post
8vo, price 6s.
‘The author ventures to express the hope that the present volume will be found to
fill a place hitherto unoccupied at least by any English writer on the subject. For
while there are critical commentaries on the Epistle in abundance, and expositions, both
scholarly and popular, dealing with its teaching as a whole, he is not aware of any other
book in English presenting that teaching in systematic form,’—F'rom Preface.
‘Any book with the name of Milligan upon it is sure of a ready welcome. ... We
can unreservedly recommend this volume as a sensible as well as a fertilising study of the
outward features, but especially the inner thought, of this great Epistle. —ZHapository
Times.
The Earliest Life of Christ ever Compiled from the Four
Gospels, being ‘The Diatessaron of Tatian.’ Literally
translated from the Arabic Version, and containing the Four
Gospels woven into One Story. With an Historical and Critical
Introduction, Notes, and Appendix, by Rev. J. Hamiyn Hix, D.D.
In demy 8vo, price 105, 6d.
The BisHoP OF GLOUCESTER AND BrIsTOL writes: ‘This is a work of very great
importance, and of unique interest. It has been given to the world in an admirable
form, and reflects the greatest credit on the able and conscientious Editor. The history
of the work, as told in a clear and well-written Introduction, will enable the reader to
appreciate the vast care and pains that have been bestowed on this singular recovery of
the first Harmony of the Gospels. The Notes are short, clear, and helpful; and the
eleven Appendices of a practical value, which the general reader will as fully recognise
as the scholar and critic. Mr. Hamlyn Hill has performed the difficult duty of Editor
with conspicuous success,’
A Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary of S.
Ephraem the Syrian. With a Scriptural Index to his
Works. By Rev. J. Hamityn Hitt, D.D. 8vo, price 75. 6d.
The Bishop or GLoucestER AND Bristou writes: ‘ This work forms a valuable
appendix to Dr. Hill’s English Version of the ‘‘ Diatessaron.” .. . It is a monument of
patient research and intelligent industry, which deserves very hearty recognition,’
Apostolic Order and Unity. [By Roszrr Brucz, M.A., D.D.,
Vicar of S. Nicholas, and Hon. Canon, Durham. Crown 8vo,
2s. 6d. net.
* As Christian in tone as it is scholarly in its treatment of the subject.'—Ezaminer,
¢
ae
Sis
Seas
ppocarae
ie
=
Sat!)
STE τς ΤΣ ΤΩΣ,
ΤΣ
SS ALISA
opti Sa
re)
5
wf
Site
eres
is
ie
ea
Hide
ὙΝῸ
*
a
ἮΝ
Shy
*v
δ
we
δ
Sabie
τὴ
AS
ἐν
ΠΡΟ ἥ
δὴ
wy
>
ἊΝ
as
OTD Tiel ep re Piet πα ened ote
Bole at gator σα στ
rdpatn ree,
th, poe
a
rte -
es
We
beatae
τ δ᾽
Brrr
<7,
eS
Piere
*
ods
hem
δα,
ἧς
es
‘9 +a
ed
Wier ee
———
ome
Sicoeaet
ΡΣ ty.
» erate
ce
pete
τ᾿
τος
ee rass
Stee
Rees
vt
| =
Oe
=
pee,
Se
She
is
me 023 ge tts
=e. Dons
renter atts
Lene
roa Sanh
Leaner art
πο
sae ἐν
mh Se
ἊΝ 4
νὰ
a tN
eee
“
NE Nen en cae Nowe heats
ke
ae
os
κῃ Εἶδα
δι =
oa
Se Ν
oa SSA
arate ee
an os Sas
aS
BS
yp
is
RVers SS
ee
See τον
5A
i
: SRR
cant tes
volts
STS
PN <Ss
Ae
~
san
SSS
sae St
<>
ne
ν
SS
ee.
ὌΝ
ον,
eras
τς
sti
ὍΣ
ἥ
i
.
wee
f
a
ie
Be
τι he
Of,
202
Lee
Me,
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11